Contract Testing: List Environment Versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations about ordering, whether results are deployments/releases or plain versions, or how paging interacts with totals; with a rich annotation set a 3 is appropriate for the modest added context.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the toolset label and full parameter list duplicate structured data already supplied to the agent. Roughly half the text earns no additional place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. What is missing is disambiguation from the crowded set of sibling version-listing tools, which is the main thing an agent needs before calling this one.

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% and the description's parameter block simply restates the schema verbatim, including defaults and required markers. It adds no meaning about acceptable pacticipantName format or how environmentId relates to the returned versions, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Retrieve the versions of a pacticipant associated with a given environment" states a concrete verb and resource and scopes it by environment. It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish this from close siblings such as contract-testing_list_pacticipant_versions, contract-testing_list_deployed_or_released_versions, or contract-testing_get_currently_deployed_versions, so an agent cannot tell which 'versions' listing to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many version-listing siblings. An agent must infer from the parameter set alone that this is the environment-scoped variant.

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