list_rollback_versions

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

Annotations already convey readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are restricted to valid rollback targets, are commit-pinned, and are ordered newest first, plus the critical caveat that SHA/label values must not be used as rollback targets.

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 tightly packed sentences: the first states the core behavior and ordering, the second delivers the essential usage constraint. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

Given a one-parameter schema, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call the tool correctly and use its result correctly. It even preempts the most likely misuse.

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 coverage is 100% for the single `id` parameter with a clear 'Deployment ID' description. The description reinforces that the list is 'for a deployment,' but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('commit-pinned website template versions that are valid rollback targets for a deployment'), and an ordering ('newest first'). It clearly differentiates this from generic template listing tools by centering on rollback targets and naming rollback_website.

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 gives explicit usage direction: use only a returned `templateId` with rollback_website, and explicitly warns against inferring a target from a commit SHA or version label. This tells the agent when and how to consume the result, and what not to do.

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