redmineflux_core_list_versions

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, return format, pagination, ordering, or any side effects. It only restates the action implied by the name, providing no additional behavioral 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 description is extremely concise, consisting of a clear purpose line and an argument explanation. There is no redundant information, and the structure is direct and front-loaded, suitable for a simple list tool.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, which are necessary for full contextual completeness. For a simple list tool, it is minimally adequate but misses key context about when and how to use it effectively.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds valuable semantics for project_id: 'Project identifier or numeric ID'. This clarifies the accepted format and is sufficient for the single parameter, fully compensating for the schema's lack of description.

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 'List versions/milestones for a project', specifying the verb 'List' and the resource 'versions/milestones'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects or list_issues, which target different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or compare with sibling tools like get_project or list_issues. It simply states the function without usage context.

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