list_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait — only *successfully rendered* versions are returned, implying failed renders are excluded — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, result limits, or permissions.

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?

One well-formed sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a simple list operation, though it borders on under-specified.

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 values need not be explained, and this is a simple one-parameter read. However, the missing parameter documentation, absent usage guidance, and lack of pagination/ordering behavior leave the definition only minimally viable.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'of a presentation project' only loosely ties project_id to a project, adding no format, source, or validation semantics for the identifier.

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 gives a precise verb ('List') and resource ('successfully rendered versions of a presentation project'), so the operation is unambiguous. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like get_artifact or get_presentation_ir, which also retrieve presentation artifacts.

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 guidance on when to use this versus get_artifact, get_presentation_ir, or render_presentation, nor any stated prerequisites. The agent must infer the selection criteria from tool names alone.

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