List an achievement's versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb "List" conveys a non-destructive read operation and the parenthetical adds workflow context, but the description does not disclose response characteristics such as whether versions are ordered, paginated, or what fields a version resource contains. The disclosure is adequate but minimal.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action and the key contextual reason for the call. Every element earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core purpose and why it matters in the localization workflow. But the absence of an output schema and any description of the response places more burden on the text to set expectations about what "version resources" are, which is not addressed. Adequate for the low complexity, with a clear gap in response expectations.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain achievementId, its format, or where an agent might obtain it. The parameter's meaning is only inferrable from its name and the phrase "for an achievement." With low schema coverage the description should compensate, and it largely does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "List the version resources for an achievement." It clearly distinguishes from list_game_center_achievements (which lists achievements themselves) and names the achievement as the target resource, differentiating it from the sibling leaderboard-versions tool. It does not explicitly call out the parallel sibling list_game_center_leaderboard_versions, hence 4 rather than 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 parenthetical "(needed to add localizations)" provides a clear workflow context for when this tool is required, which is useful for an agent deciding whether to call it. However, it gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or guidance on when a sibling like list_game_center_leaderboard_versions would be the right choice instead. Usage is implied rather than explicitly scoped.

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