List Pipeline Versions

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, non‑destructive, idempotent), the description discloses several important behaviors: newest-first ordering, the exact list of returned attributes, the semantics of checksum as recipe-draft source identity, the fact that data is never returned, and detailed paging rules (limit range, cursor reuse, null cursor meaning end). This is rich, non-obvious context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then packs field list, critical exclusions, and paging rules into one short paragraph. Every sentence serves a purpose; there is no redundant or filler language.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description still supplies all necessary operational details: owned-pipeline prerequisite, ordering, paging contract, and the crucial warning that data is not included. An agent can correctly call this tool without further lookup.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates: it explains pipeline_ref can be a hash or id, defines the limit range (1-200), and specifies cursor semantics (send back unchanged, null means end). All three parameters receive meaningful guidance 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the saved versions of one owned pipeline' and enumerates the exact fields returned. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on pipeline versions rather than pipelines themselves, and it notes the distinction from data-fetching 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 gives clear context: it lists metadata, never data, and tells the user to 'fetch a draft template with pipeline_version_id' for the actual data. It also explains paging behavior. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tool (e.g., get_recipe_draft_template) or mention how to obtain a pipeline_ref, leaving slight ambiguity about alternatives.

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