getVersionsByProject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic list action. It does not mention authentication requirements, response format, pagination, or whether only open versions are returned. This is a significant gap for a read 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified to the point of lacking useful detail, so conciseness is achieved at the expense of substance.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and minimal description. The tool has nested parameters and requires a projectId and format, but the description gives no guidance on required fields, response shape, or limitations. For a simple list tool, this is incomplete.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the parameters (pathParams.projectId, pathParams.format, queryParams.nometa) or their roles. The agent must rely entirely on the schema, which is insufficient without additional context.

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 'List versions by project' uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'versions' and scope 'by project'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getVersions (which likely lists all versions) and createVersion by indicating project-scoped 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?

The description implies use when needing versions for a specific project, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over getVersions or other alternatives. No exclusions or context are given, so usage is only implied.

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