List Iceberg API versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only a hint about what is listed (stable/nightly identities, optional revision) but no behavioral context such as configuration source, error behavior, or side effects. With annotations present, the description adds minimal new transparency value.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that names the action first and then specifies the resource scope. Every phrase adds information: 'configured' indicates server-side state, 'stable/nightly' describes the version types, and 'optional local source revision' clarifies an additional return component. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly adequate. It covers what will be listed and that local revision is optional. The main gap is the absence of any connection to the broader workflow (e.g., why an agent would call this before browsing/searching), but this is a minor omission given the simplicity of the tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema's description coverage is 100% (trivially satisfied), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description's mention of 'configured' and 'optional local source revision' clarifies that inputs come from configuration rather than call parameters, which is a useful, non-redundant cue. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 names a concrete action ('List') and a specific resource ('configured stable/nightly Javadoc identities and optional local source revision'), making the tool's purpose discernible. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like iceberg_api_browse and iceberg_api_search because it targets version identity listing. However, 'Javadoc identities' is somewhat specialized and not fully self-explanatory, so not a perfect 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not reference any sibling or alternative, nor does it suggest a scenario in which an agent should choose this tool over iceberg_api_compare_versions or iceberg_api_get_type. The agent must infer applicability solely from the name and general wording.

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