list_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'detected' versions and 'associated metadata', but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, how results are formatted, if there are rate limits, or what 'detected' implies (e.g., from a scan vs. a database). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on behavior, output format, and differentiation from siblings, which are important for completeness in this context with multiple similar tools.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% coverage (empty object). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't introduce confusion or redundancy.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'detected FRMR versions and associated metadata from documents', which is specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_frmr_documents' or 'list_controls', which would require a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple list-related siblings (e.g., list_frmr_documents, list_controls, list_ksi), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this tool.

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