pine_get_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: an unexpected response is treated as an error and is never silently returned as an empty version list, which helps the agent interpret failures correctly.

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-loads the core purpose, and uses the second sentence for an important behavioral caveat. There is no filler or repetition.

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 version-history tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and an important error-handling trait. It is still incomplete because it does not explain the limit parameter, version ordering, or what the returned version history contains.

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 only 50%. The description reinforces that script_id must be an exact script ID, but it says nothing about the limit parameter, even though pagination or result-size semantics are important for a version-history read. The target_id and expected_layout_id parameters are documented in the schema, but the description does not clarify their role in this read-only operation.

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: reading native saved Pine version history by exact script ID. This is clear enough to distinguish it from general source-reading siblings, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with the nearest alternatives such as pine_get_saved_source or pine_get_source.

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 phrase 'by exact script ID' implies that the tool requires a known exact ID and should not be used for discovery or listing, which gives some usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for listing scripts or reading current saved source.

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