List versions of an application

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the returned content, including the non-obvious detail that ports carry a TLS Upgrade flag needed by browser/WebGL clients for wss://, plus whether registry credentials exist for image pulls. It omits pagination/ordering behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the returned fields, then the usage sentence. Every clause carries information; the descriptions of returned fields are dense but each one (TLS Upgrade, registry login) is actionable and not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly. Remaining gaps are minor for a scoped list-under-a-parent call: no mention of ordering or pagination limits, and no explicit note that a nonexistent application errors.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains 'application' and even cross-references edgegap_list_apps as the source. The description adds no syntax, naming, or format constraints beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the versions under an application') and immediately enumerates the payload the agent will get back (container image, resources, ports/TLS, registry login). This is clearly distinguishable from edgegap_list_apps and edgegap_list_registry_tags, which operate on different resources.

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?

Explicitly names three concrete use cases: finding the version name to deploy, verifying a version is ready before deploying, and copying settings when creating a new one. The last two also route implicitly to edgegap_deploy and edgegap_create_app_version, so the agent knows when this tool is the right first step.

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