ftrack_list_asset_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of conveying behavior. The verb 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other relevant details such as whether both task_id and asset_id can be used together, or any limitations on the query scope.

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 a single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and contains no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about return values and filter behavior. It does not explain what the response contains, whether both filters can be combined, or how limit influences results. The description is too sparse for a tool with no other behavioral documentation.

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 description adds minimal value by hinting that versions are scoped by task or asset, which maps to task_id and asset_id. It does not clarify the limit parameter or the relationship between the two filter parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('List') and resource ('asset versions'), and provides scoping context ('for a task or asset'). It is specific and understandable, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools, though the resource is unique.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what it does, not the appropriate usage context.

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