list_hda_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation examines installed definitions and reveals the output dimensions (version, file, current), but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe failure behavior, or clarify what 'current' means.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler words. The output-relevant information appears first and the argument documentation is minimal, though the missing verb makes the main sentence slightly less polished.

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 one-parameter list operation, the description covers the main return values but not edge cases, error behavior, or how the result relates to the HDA's installed versions. The absence of an output schema and annotations means a bit more context would be needed for a fully self-sufficient definition.

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 schema provides only the parameter name and title 'Node Path' with 0% description coverage. The description adds a minimal semantic by saying node_path is 'An HDA instance,' which is useful but vague and does not clarify the expected path format or how the HDA type is resolved.

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 states what is returned: every installed definition of an HDA node's type, including version, file, and which is current. It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' and does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as list_installed_hdas or get_hda_info, but it is specific enough to identify the resource and scope.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_installed_hdas or get_hda_info. It only documents the arguments, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list.

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