gateway_knowledge_document_versions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. The description adds the constraint 'retained versions', indicating not all versions may be listed, and that the document is a markdown document, which clarifies the expected input. This gives useful context beyond the annotation.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. No filler words, and it is easy to scan quickly.

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?

This is a read-only list operation with an output schema, so the agent can infer the return structure. The description is brief but sufficient for a simple list operation. It could benefit from clarifying what 'retained versions' means (e.g., version numbers, timestamps) but is adequate given the low complexity.

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, but it does not explain any parameters. The 'document' parameter is implicitly clear (the document to list versions for), but 'space' and 'limit' are unexplained. Given that there are 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, a 3 is appropriate: it provides some implicit meaning but leaves gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List retained versions of a markdown document.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like gateway_knowledge_document_get (fetches current document) and gateway_knowledge_document_search (searches documents). The phrase 'retained versions' is a bit vague but acceptable.

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 context implies this tool is for listing versions of a specific document, which is distinct from getting the document or searching. However, there is no explicit when to use or when not to use, and no mention of alternatives. The agent can infer usage from the name and description but not with explicit guidance.

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