rca_graph_list_versions

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: automatic snapshotting on every save, lack of a separate save-version step, newest-first ordering, and the feature requirement. This gives the agent a strong model of what will happen when invoked.

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 well-organized and efficient: purpose, snapshot behavior, feature requirement, follow-up usage hint, then Args and Returns. Every sentence adds useful information and the most important facts are front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool, the description is complete: it states the resource, the versioning mechanics, the prerequisite feature, the return JSON structure, the ordering, and the natural follow-up action. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 signaled as 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It only mentions graph_id, restating the schema's own description, while token and client_id are left out. The nested schema does describe those fields, but the description itself adds little value beyond what the structured schema already provides and does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all historical versions of a causal graph.' It also clarifies how versions are created and distinguishes this from related tools like rca_graph_restore_version and rca_graph_get, so an agent can identify the correct operation.

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 gives clear context: versions are snapshotted automatically on save, there is no manual save step, and the feature requires graph_versioning (Starter+). It also tells the agent to use returned version_id values with rca_graph_restore_version. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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