asset_version_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real value by stating that archived versions are included, preventing a wrong assumption about default filtering. However, it says nothing about result size, pagination, or depth limits for potentially large trees, which is the main behavioral risk for a recursive read.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the most important qualifier (complete tree, archived included) appears before any trailing detail. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

As a read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should convey what the returned tree contains (nodes, version metadata, parent links). It conveys the shape conceptually through 'root-to-descendant' but leaves the actual return content and identifier expectations to inference, which is adequate but incomplete.

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% for the single required parameter 'assetId', and the description does not mention the parameter at all. It does not clarify whether the identifier is a numeric ID, UUID, or slug, so the description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('complete root-to-descendant recipe version tree for an asset'), plus a scope qualifier ('including archived versions'). An agent can tell this is a tree-traversal read, but the description never contrasts it with the sibling 'asset_recipe_history', so the distinction must be inferred from the tool names alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent learns this returns a full version tree, which suggests it is the choice when lineage across versions is needed. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over 'asset_recipe_history' or 'asset_provenance_export', and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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