List Versions

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable behavioral context: versions are immutable, ordering is newest-first, and the returned fields include deploy message. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and includes a purposeful alternative. Every word contributes without redundancy.

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 operation with one parameter and rich annotations, the description provides ordering, content, and a cross-reference to related tooling. No output schema is present, but the description sufficiently indicates expected returns (version ID, number, author, source, deploy message).

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 100% and describes script_name as 'the name of the Worker script.' The description does not add further parameter-level nuance beyond implying that script_name identifies the Worker whose versions are listed. Baseline score is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 tool lists a Worker's versions, enumerates the included fields, and specifies ordering (newest first). It distinguishes itself from list_deployments by noting that live versions are a separate concern, preventing confusion among siblings.

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?

It explicitly directs users to list_deployments for live version information, providing a clear alternative. The assertion that versions are immutable snapshots further clarifies when to use this tool versus deployment-related tools.

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