versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: read-only behavior is only implied, and there is no mention of permissions, pagination, ordering, or whether an omitted skill_id returns all versions or errors. For a history-listing tool this leaves key behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with no wasted words, but it is a bare noun phrase rather than a sentence, and the brevity comes at the cost of nearly all useful detail.

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 itself is simple — one optional string parameter, no output schema — so it should be easy to describe completely, yet the definition omits requiredness, return shape, and ordering. An agent would have to call it blind to learn what it returns.

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 compensate and does so only minimally by naming 'skill id'. It never states whether skill_id is required (the schema marks it optional), what happens when it is omitted, or what format the identifier takes.

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 fragment 'Version history for a skill id' identifies the resource (version history) and its scoping key, so an agent can guess it retrieves past versions. But there is no verb, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'changes', which plausibly covers a similar retrieval need.

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 when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. The overlap with the sibling 'changes' is left entirely unresolved, forcing the agent to guess which one surfaces historical revisions.

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