ateam_github_list_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-only listing operation but does not explicitly state it is safe or mention any authentication requirements or rate limits. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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: the first states the action and output, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.

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 lack of an output schema, the description specifies the output fields (tag name, date, counter, commit SHA). The tool has only one parameter and the description covers its purpose and usage context completely.

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 only parameter solution_id has a schema description 'The solution ID.' The tool description adds context by explaining that the parameter identifies which solution to list checkpoints for and what output fields are returned (tag name, date, counter, commit SHA), adding value beyond the schema.

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 available checkpoints (safe-* tags) for a solution, specifying the output fields (tag name, date, counter, commit SHA). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ateam_github_rollback or ateam_github_diff.

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 explicitly says 'Use before rollback to see available safe points,' providing clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but for this simple tool it is adequate.

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