get_project_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, sorting behavior (semver-aware, newest first), and return structure. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple listing tool, this is adequate.

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 concise, with each sentence adding value. It front-loads the main action, then covers return, use case, read-only status, and parameters. No redundant information.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters. It could mention error scenarios (e.g., project not found), but for a listing tool, the provided information is sufficient.

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%, meaning the description must fully explain parameters. It does so effectively: 'name: Exact project name' and 'active_only: Exclude projects marked inactive in DT' with default true, adding meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 of a project by exact name,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning its use for picking UUIDs for diff_findings and carry_over_triage, which are sibling tools.

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 explicitly says 'Used to pick source / target UUIDs for diff_findings and carry_over_triage,' providing clear context for when to use it. It also states 'Read-only,' but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or list alternatives.

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