list_project_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 disclosure, but it only states the basic operation and that IDs are returned. It does not mention ordering, filtering, error behavior, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary sentence. The Args section is redundant with the schema, but it does not significantly bloat the description, so it remains appropriately sized.

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 absence of annotations and minimal usage guidance, the description is incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool. While the output schema covers return values, the description fails to provide contextual guidance beyond the literal action, leaving the description under-informative.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it merely repeats the parameter name and a tautological 'project identifier' with no format, examples, or additional context. This provides no meaningful guidance on what value to pass.

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 a project's versions (milestones) and includes their IDs, making the action and resource specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools or version-related mutation tools, so it lacks the explicit distinction needed for a 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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to list a project's versions) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like list_trackers or create_project_version. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, so the agent must infer the usage context.

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