list_versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it reveals the snapshot-chain model, version merging per annotation round, ordering (new versions first), empty-list behavior, and the meaning of each desc as 'state before that annotation round'. This goes far beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: purpose, snapshot semantics, output shape, desc meaning, and companion tool. It is front-loaded with the core action and maintains a logical flow from behavior to return format to usage.

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 tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is complete: it explains the return fields, empty result behavior, version semantics, and how to combine with restore_version. An agent can correctly invoke it and interpret results without additional context.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but none are strictly needed here.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: '列出文档的版本历史' (list document version history). It further clarifies semantics with the snapshot-chain explanation, output array shape, and explicitly names restore_version as the companion tool, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like restore_version or read_location.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for reading version history and works together with restore_version for arbitrary rollback, giving a concrete workflow context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, e.g., for reading current document content instead of history.

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