list_recipe_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the description adds the return fields, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like pagination (the limit parameter), ordering of versions, or error handling, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded: it states the action, the resource, the key output fields, and the purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no extraneous 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?

For a simple list tool, the description covers the core function and output fields, but it omits parameter semantics, ordering behavior, and any pagination details. Without an output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 input schema has no descriptions for either parameter, and the description does not explain any parameters. Recipe_id is inferable from the tool name, but 'limit' is completely unexplained, and with 0% schema description coverage, the agent is left without guidance on how to use the limit parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('a recipe's version history') and explicitly names the return fields (version_no, author, comment). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_recipe or get_recipe_steps by focusing solely on version history, and the mention of 'tracking/rollback awareness' adds contextual purpose.

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 implies usage for tracking/rollback awareness, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or list any exclusions. There is no mention of alternative tools or specific conditions for use, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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