list_versions

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

With no annotations, the description only mentions filtering capabilities. It does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, or potential side effects (though it is a read operation). The agent is left to infer from the schema that there are page and perPage parameters, but the description itself provides no behavioral context beyond listing.

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 clear purpose sentence followed by bullet-pointed use cases. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary details. The structure is efficient and easy 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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core filtering but omits pagination details (page/perPage) and response format. It also does not clarify the difference from list_program_versions. For a read tool with moderate complexity, it is somewhat complete but could be improved.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping use cases to parameters (filter by status, search by name), but it does not add new semantics beyond the schema's descriptions. It clarifies the status values (TODO, DOING, ARCHIVED) which are also in the schema, so additional value is minimal.

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 it lists versions for a Yunxiao Project or Program, which covers the core purpose. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_program_versions', which could cause confusion. The verb 'List' combined with the resource 'versions' is specific.

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 lists use cases (list all, filter by status, search by name) which imply when to use, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or how it compares to alternatives like list_program_versions. It lacks explicit guidance on selection among siblings.

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