s3_list_object_versions

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that by revealing the response includes delete markers and that the bucket must be versioned. It does not describe pagination, error behavior, or response shape, but those are secondary for a safe read 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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and object, and the 'including delete markers' qualifier is placed at the end where it does not interfere with the primary action. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description plus schema covers the core behavior and parameter meanings, but there is no mention of output structure, pagination behavior, or how the tool behaves on an unversioned bucket. Since there is no output schema and the tool has 6 parameters, these gaps leave some uncertainty for an agent.

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 67% (bucket, prefix, keyMarker, and versionIdMarker are described; maxKeys and delimiter are not), and the description contributes no parameter-level meaning. An agent gets no help from the description for the undocumented maxKeys and delimiter parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the exact resource ('all versions of objects in a versioned B2 bucket'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('including delete markers') that separates it from siblings like s3_list_objects_v2. This makes the tool's scope immediately clear.

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 the use case: an agent needs this tool when it wants every version or delete markers rather than just current objects. However, it never explicitly names alternatives like s3_list_objects_v2 or states when not to use this tool, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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