GetStructureVersions

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

The description explicitly marks the tool as read-only with '[read-only]' and describes the returned fields. Since annotations are absent, the description carries full burden but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or pagination. It adds value beyond a minimal definition but is not exhaustive.

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 two sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with '[read-only].' Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 description explains what the tool returns (version list with specific fields) and mentions the content_uri for source retrieval. It does not cover ordering or pagination, but given the simple read operation and absence of output schema, it is mostly complete.

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?

The sole parameter 'structure_name' is documented in the schema with 'ABAP structure name.' The description does not add additional meaning beyond that. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 the tool's action: 'List the SAP version history of a ABAP structure.' It specifies the resource (ABAP structure) and what is returned (version list with fields). It distinguishes from sibling tools like GetStructureVersionDiff and GetStructureVersionSource by noting the content_uri for fetching source via a separate tool.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to list versions) and implicitly points to GetStructureVersionSource for fetching source content. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives like GetStructureVersionDiff for diffing versions.

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