fluig_process_versions

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

Description indicates a read-only listing operation, but with no annotations, additional behavioral details (e.g., permissions, return format, pagination) are missing. The mention of 'whether it is still in edition' adds some context, but overall transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return fields, followed by usage guidance. No wasted words, 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?

Given low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains what is listed and when to use it, though a bit more detail on the return format would make it perfect.

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% (one parameter well described). The description does not add extra meaning beyond 'process id', so it meets the baseline without adding value.

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 of a process and specifies the returned information (number, bound form, edition status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fluig_process_version, fluig_process_version_withdraw, etc., which deal with single versions or actions on versions.

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?

Explicitly advises to use the tool before withdrawing or deleting a version, providing clear guidance on when to invoke it. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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