list_side_page_versions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that default detail is 'short', and that the response always includes top-level currentVersionId and publishedVersionId, which is valuable behavioral context. It lacks details like pagination or item structure, but for a list operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 sentences, each providing distinct value: core action, default behavior, and pointer to sibling tool. No redundant text or filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, default behavior, key response fields (draft/live IDs), and directs to the view tool for content. It doesn't describe the list item structure or ordering, but for a straightforward list with detail levels, this is adequate though not exhaustive.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the default detail and mentions the top-level response fields, but doesn't add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The enum values and descriptions are fully captured in the input 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?

Specific verb 'List' with resource 'all saved versions of a side page' immediately clarifies the function. The description also distinguishes from siblings by noting the top-level draft/live IDs and by pointing to view_side_page_version for section content.

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 states that currentVersionId (draft) and publishedVersionId (live) are always included 'so an agent can tell draft vs. live without a second call', which gives clear context for when to use this tool. It also explicitly recommends view_side_page_version for viewing section content, effectively indicating an alternative for deeper inspection. However, it doesn't contrast with list_lp_versions or other sibling tools, though the difference is implied.

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