list_design_versions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses ordering behavior and default limit via the 'limit' parameter description, but lacks details on pagination, total count, or potential side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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 efficient, using four sentences covering purpose, parameters, and returns. No redundant information, front-loaded with the core action.

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 list tool without output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, parameters, and ordering. Lacks mention of pagination or difference from 'search_design_versions', but is otherwise complete.

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 'Args' section in the description adds meaning to both parameters: design_id is explained as 'the design whose versions to list', and limit includes default and maximum semantics. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, this significantly aids understanding.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'version history for a design', and specifies ordering ('newest first'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'search_design_versions', which implies filtering or searching.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer 'search_design_versions' over listing all versions, nor any context for usage limitations.

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