get_versions_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds that sorting, pagination, and relations inclusion are possible, which hints at response customization, but it doesn't disclose return format, pagination limits, or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, this is a moderate addition.

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?

Three sentences, with the first two being somewhat redundant. Front-loads the purpose but could be tightened by merging the first two sentences. No wasted fluff beyond that.

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 collection endpoint with annotations and a detailed schema, the description covers the essential scope and key features (sorting, pagination, relations). It misses the search query parameter and does not explain pagination defaults or limits. Adequate but incomplete.

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 reported as 0% for the top-level parameter, though nested properties have descriptions. The description mentions the relations parameter and sorting/pagination, mapping to 'with', 'order', 'page', 'limit', but omits the 'query' search parameter entirely. It does not fully compensate for the low 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?

States a specific verb ('Get'/'Retrieve') and resource ('versions'), and scopes it to 'across all applications', which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_application_versions (scoped to a single application). However, the first sentence 'Get all versions' is somewhat tautological and the scope clarification comes in the second sentence. Still clear overall.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus get_application_versions or other version-related tools. The advice to apply sorting/pagination and include relations is operational, not usage selection.

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