list_application_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the version-recording behavior, the read-only nature implied by 'List all versions,' and the exact return shape. It does not cover pagination, ordering, or error behavior, but those are minor for this simple list 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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args/Returns structure with no redundant information. Every line 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 one-parameter, no-nested-objects list operation with an output schema, the description is complete. It provides the application name semantics, the version-creation rule, and detailed return fields, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must fully define the parameter. It does: 'application_name (string, required): Name of the DBOS application.' This adds precise meaning beyond the schema's bare property title.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all versions of an application from DBOS Conductor.' It clearly identifies the tool's output and distinguishes itself from related version-control behavior by referencing set_latest_application_version.

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 explains when versions are recorded and points to a sibling tool, set_latest_application_version, for controlling the current version. It provides useful context but does not explicitly contrast this tool with other listing tools such as list_applications.

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