List Tracker queue versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the returned item shape (name, date range, released/archived flags), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the resource, the payload shape, and the sibling routing. The resource definition is front-loaded with 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and the create alternative, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Only an explicit listing use-case trigger is absent.

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 100% and the single queue_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail for queue_id, but none is needed.

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?

States the resource explicitly ('The queue's versions') and defines the domain concept ('release milestones issues can be assigned to'), so an agent knows exactly what is being listed. It also names the create counterpart, distinguishing it from tracker_queues_versions_create/get/update/delete.

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?

It explicitly routes the write case to ``queues_versions_create``, giving a clear this-vs-sibling signal. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when you need to inspect available versions', so it is strong context rather than a full when/when-not statement.

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