list_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does (list versions) and basic filtering, but lacks details on pagination behavior, response format, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation-free listing operation.

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 with a domain tag, clear purpose, and bulleted use cases. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no superfluous sentences. However, it could be slightly more compact.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality but omits details like pagination behavior and result format. It is adequate for a straightforward list tool but not fully complete.

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 has 100% coverage, providing clear descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description's Use Cases mention filtering by status and name, adding minimal value beyond the schema. A score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'versions' for a Yunxiao Project or Program. It also specifies use cases like listing all versions, filtering by status, and searching by name, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_version or delete_version.

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 'Use Cases' section provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: list all versions, filter by status, and search by name. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to similar tools like list_program_versions, which could cause confusion for similar functionality.

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