presentation_list_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey that this is a read-only operation. The verb 'Lista' implies no mutation, and the ordering is disclosed. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or require any permissions, leaving some ambiguity.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action 'Lista'. It is concise and contains no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, input resource, and ordering of results. It does not need to detail return values for a straightforward list operation, especially given the schema covers the input.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter with a description 'ID del deck.' The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, 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 tool lists version history (commits) of a presentation, with a specific ordering (newest to oldest). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like presentation_get or presentation_list, which serve different purposes.

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 provides clear context: it is used to retrieve the commit history of a specific presentation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate.

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