list_model_card_versions_sagemaker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only repeats the tool's function without disclosing additional traits such as read-only behavior, error conditions, pagination, or result ordering. The description adds no value beyond the name itself.

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 a single sentence that is direct and free of fluff. It is appropriately sized for the operation it describes.

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 list operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It conveys the essential purpose, and the output schema handles return value details. However, with no annotations and minimal behavioral context, it's not maximally complete, but it suffices for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% (the parameter 'model_card_name' is fully described in the schema). The description adds no further meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'versions of a SageMaker Model Card'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_model_cards_sagemaker (which lists cards, not versions) and describe_model_card_sagemaker (which describes a single card). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage context (list versions for a given model card name) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of when-not-to-use or alternative tools, so the usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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