Contract Testing: Get Currently Supported Versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data and the description need not restate it. The description adds modest scoping context ('released and supported' vs. merely existing) but nothing about error behavior, whether the environment must exist, or pagination semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the one-line Toolset label adds useful grouping without bloating the description. The parameter list is somewhat redundant with the input schema, but the whole description remains compact and well-ordered.

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?

For a simple read-only query with a fully documented schema and annotations carrying the safety profile, everything needed to invoke it correctly is present: the required environmentId and pagination defaults. The notable gap is that the nearly identically named sibling get_currently_deployed_versions is never addressed, so an agent gets no help distinguishing 'supported' from 'deployed' versions. With no output schema, one clarifying sentence about the result or the sibling distinction would make this complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The inline parameter list exactly duplicates the schema's descriptions ('UUID of the environment', 'Page number', 'Results per page', with defaults) and adds no meaning beyond the structured field documentation.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve'), names the resource ('all versions currently released and supported'), and scopes it to 'a given environment.' The phrase 'released and supported' implicitly separates this from the near-twin sibling contract-testing_get_currently_deployed_versions, though that sibling is never named explicitly, which keeps this just short of a 5.

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 'Toolset: Environments and Deployments' label and the 'in a given environment' scope imply this is the tool for querying what is supported in an environment, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of closely related alternatives like contract-testing_get_currently_deployed_versions, contract-testing_get_environment, or contract-testing_list_environments.

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