list_feature_versions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ordering (oldest first), which is useful, but the tier copy ('Requires Kiln Pro') is boilerplate plan advertising and leaves it ambiguous whether this specific tool is gated, and says nothing about result size, pagination, or error behavior for a missing feature_id.

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 purpose is correctly front-loaded in one crisp sentence, but three subsequent lines are promotional body copy and an upgrade URL that do not help an agent invoke the tool. Roughly three quarters of the text is waste.

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, no annotations, and an undocumented parameter, the description should explain what a 'version' entry contains and how many are typically returned. It instead spends its budget on tier advertising, leaving the agent under-informed for a listing call.

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 coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. 'One feature' only weakly implies feature_id identifies the feature; nothing is said about accepted ID format or whether version IDs, names, or slugs are valid inputs.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('List every version of one feature') plus an ordering guarantee ('oldest first'), which is genuinely informative. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as list_feature_releases, list_feature_branches, or show_branch_history, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 guidance and no named alternative, despite the sibling list containing several close candidates (list_feature_releases, list_feature_branches, list_feature_cherry_pick_candidates). The remaining text is plan marketing rather than selection guidance.

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