Contract Testing: Get Currently Deployed Versions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the context that it retrieves 'all versions' for a given environment, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or whether it includes historical data or only the current set. Since annotations cover the core safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise: one introductory sentence, a toolset line, and a parameter listing. It is front-loaded with the core action. There is no extraneous content, and every element serves a purpose. It could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points), but it is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has only one parameter, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks information about the output format (e.g., what fields are returned for each version). While no output schema is provided, the description could mention that the result is a list of version identifiers. This gap reduces completeness slightly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with a single required 'environmentId' parameter described as 'UUID of the environment.' The description repeats this same information, adding no extra semantic meaning or format details. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The title and description clearly state the tool retrieves 'all versions currently deployed to a given environment.' The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'versions...to a given environment' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like recording deployments or getting deployed versions for a specific version.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a 'Toolset: Environments and Deployments' hint but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_deployed_versions_for_version or record_deployment. The agent may need to infer the use case from the name and context, which is adequate but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.