forge_version_set_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (list) and output detail (pinned versions) but does not confirm read-only nature, required permissions, pagination behavior, or any side effects. This is minimal info for a safe 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 a single sentence that conveys the core action and key output detail. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could be slightly improved by adding a brief note on output structure without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema, the description does not specify the return format or fields beyond 'pinned versions.' For a list tool, context on what is returned (e.g., version set IDs, names) would improve completeness. Still, with simple parameters, it is minimally adequate.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (service_name and org_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond 'for a service,' which is already clear from the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3.

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 all version sets for a service, with the additional detail of showing pinned versions. The verb 'list' and resource 'version sets' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like forge_version_set_promote and forge_version_set_upsert.

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 typical usage for listing version sets but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other version-related tools (e.g., promote, upsert). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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