List a document's version history

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly safe. The description adds behavioral context by noting the return order ('most recent first') and the general listing behavior, going beyond the annotations. It does not cover edge cases (e.g., missing document) but is adequate given the simple read-only nature.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that fully convey the action, ordering, and use case. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 covers the core functionality, return order, and purpose, which is sufficient for a simple list tool with good annotations and a clear parameter schema. However, it does not mention what happens when there are no versions or the target is invalid, and the lack of an output schema means the return format is entirely unspecified, leaving a slight gap in completeness.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (limit and target), each with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without extra value.

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 purpose: 'List saved versions of a Rootr (루터) document, most recent first.' This specific verb and resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like rootr_read or rootr_edit, and the additional context about seeing changes and recovering revisions reinforces its unique role.

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 explains the tool's utility ('useful for seeing what changed and when, or to recover an older revision'), providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives among the many sibling tools, missing a chance to fully differentiate.

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