rca_graph_list_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the tool's safety is well-covered. The description adds value by explaining the automatic version snapshot behavior and detailing the return format (JSON list of {version_id, created_at, node_count, edge_count}). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Four lines, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a brief explanation of version creation and the return format. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 listing tool with one required parameter (graph_id), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the auto-snapshot behavior and explicitly lists the return fields. Annotations and output schema (implied by the return description) cover the rest.

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?

Despite the input schema having a description for graph_id, the context signals indicate 0% schema description coverage, suggesting minimal parameter documentation in the schema. The tool description provides no additional meaning for parameters like token or client_id. Schema coverage is poor, and the description does not compensate.

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?

Description clearly states 'List all historical versions of a causal graph', providing a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like rca_graph_restore_version (which restores rather than lists) and rca_graph_get (which retrieves the current graph).

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?

Explains that versions are automatically snapshotted on save, which helps the agent understand when to use this tool. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like rca_graph_restore_version, the context of version listing is clear. Implicit guidance is sufficient for this simple use case.

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