whodb_platform_project_active_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral note that the workspace argument targets a call without changing session defaults, but says nothing about return shape, ordering, or pagination for a list operation.

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 tight sentences that front-load the operation and then the targeting behavior, with no filler. Slightly redundant against the schema's own workspace description, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

With no output schema and a nested workspace argument, the description is only partially complete: it never clarifies what a 'version' record contains or how results relate to the required object_type/id. The annotations cover safety, but the listing semantics remain underspecified.

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 schema already documents id, fields, object_type and the nested workspace properties. The description's workspace note ('per-call targeting without changing defaults') largely restates what the schema's workspace description already says. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List active production versions') scoped to a project, which is clearer than a bare name. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'whodb_platform_active_version' (singular) or 'whodb_platform_object_versions', and the described project-level scope sits oddly against the required id/object_type params, which imply per-object listing.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the singular active_version or object_versions siblings. The agent is left to infer when this list tool should be chosen over its close alternatives.

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