list_versions

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full weight. It explains the output structure ({unreleasedVersions, releasedVersions} with label and value) and notes that -1 represents Unscheduled version. It does not mention error cases or destructive effects, but as a read operation, this is sufficient.

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 concise: a single-line purpose, followed by parameter details and output format. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter usage, output format, and special version constant. No gaps remain.

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 input schema only specifies project as string or integer. The description adds crucial meaning: it accepts key, name, or numeric id, and advises preferring id to skip a lookup. This fully compensates for the 0% schema 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 states 'List the versions of a project' with a mapping of name to versionId. It is specific about the resource and action, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with cycles and executions.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on how to use the project parameter (key, name, or id, preferring id), but does not discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since no sibling tool lists versions, this is acceptable.

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