Get Project Versions

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context: by default, obsolete and inherited versions are excluded, and how to change that. No contradictions.

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?

Five well-structured sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return format, usage hint, default behavior with parameters, prerequisite. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return format and fields. It covers all parameters, defaults, linking to other tools, and prerequisites. Complete for a read-only list tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by rephrasing defaults and explaining practical use (e.g., 'to include deprecated versions' for obsolete, 'for sub-projects that share versions' for inherit).

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 'List all versions defined for a MantisBT project' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on versions, which no other sibling tool covers.

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 explicit guidance: use returned version names when creating/updating issues, explains default behavior (excluding obsolete/inherited), and how to include them via parameters. It also lists a prerequisite (obtain project_id from list_projects).

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