sui_list_package_versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list historical versions' but does not explain critical aspects such as pagination behavior, error handling, authentication requirements, or the structure of the returned data. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no extraneous information. Every phrase ('historical versions', 'upgrade chain', 'useful when...') adds value, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not specify the return format, pagination limits, or how to interpret the 'upgrade chain' data. Agents would likely need to infer or experiment to use the tool correctly.

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 only 25% (only the 'network' parameter has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-level information, nor does it clarify the meaning or expected format of required parameters like 'package_id' or optional ones like 'page_size' and 'page_token'. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 specifies the action ('List historical versions') and the resource ('a Move package'), with additional context ('the upgrade chain') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like sui_get_package which retrieves the current package. The purpose is unambiguous and directly actionable.

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 provides a concrete use case ('Useful when an address points at an older snapshot of a contract'), helping agents decide when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternative tools for when the current version is needed, leaving some ambiguity.

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