list_program_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation by the verb 'List', but does not explicitly state it is safe/read-only, nor does it mention permissions, side effects, pagination behavior, or return format. For a tool without annotations, this is insufficient. Score 2.

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 and front-loaded with the action. The use cases are listed in a scannable format. No unnecessary verbiage; every sentence adds either scope, purpose, or typical usage. Excellent conciseness.

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?

For a list operation with a rich schema (6 params, all documented), the description adequately explains the core function. However, it does not mention return structure (though implied by 'List'), error conditions, or specific pagination details beyond what the schema already says. Given no output schema and no annotations, it falls short of providing a complete behavioral contract. Adequate but with gaps, so a 3.

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 schema fully documents each parameter. The description repeats the filtering concepts (status, name) without adding new syntax, constraints, or cross-parameter relationships. Since the schema already explains arguments, the description adds no extra value beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 lists versions for a Yunxiao Program (Project Set). It specifies the resource (versions) and scope (program), giving a clear verb+resource combo. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_versions', relying on the name and program context to distinguish. Thus a 4 rather than 5.

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 practical use cases: listing all versions, filtering by status, and searching by name. This gives clear context on when to use the tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'for non-program versions use list_versions'), but the program-specific scope is clear. Score 4 for clear context without explicit alternatives.

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