list_review_versions_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that only frozen review mix versions are included and that the result has an active flag, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, ordering, pagination, or any side effects. The verb 'List' implies a read operation, so this is minimal but not empty disclosure.

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 with no filler: 'List frozen review mix versions (includes active flag).' Every word adds meaning, and the parenthetical adds a useful output detail without bloating the text.

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 simple single-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the return shape is likely covered externally, and the core purpose is clear. However, the description still omits when to use this tool versus related review-version tools and leaves project_path semantics to inference, making it adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 schema has one parameter, project_path, with zero description coverage, and the tool description never explains its format, meaning, or role beyond the tool's subject matter. The name suggests it is a project path, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema-level parameter documentation.

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') with a specific resource ('frozen review mix versions') and an output detail ('includes active flag'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like publish_review_version_tool and set_active_review_version_tool, which perform different actions on review versions.

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 no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related siblings, such as publish_review_version_tool or set_active_review_version_tool. Usage context is only implied by the word 'List' and the tool name, with no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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