list_solver_versions

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 usefully discloses the default XML location, the allowed-folder restriction, and the kind of solver metadata returned, but it does not describe error behavior, permission requirements, or what happens if the file is missing or invalid.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every sentence adds useful information, and the trailing argument note is brief enough not to be wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not fully explain return values, though it helpfully summarizes what is listed. For a one-parameter read/list tool it is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around failure modes and permission expectations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so reasonably well for the single optional xml_path parameter: it identifies the default file location and states that the path must be inside an allowed folder, which adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare string schema.

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 and resource: it lists LS-DYNA executables known to Workbench, and it names the backing XML file and fields returned. It does not explicitly distinguish this from similarly named sibling tools such as list_solver_files, but the purpose itself is clear.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to discover solver versions/configurations. The description adds a default location and an allowed-folder constraint for xml_path, but it does not state when to use this versus related sibling tools like list_solver_files or list_lsdyna_jobs.

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