list_hda_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only listing but never states that the operation is non-destructive, requires no special permissions, or has any rate or performance characteristics. No output schema exists to cover return behavior either.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and informative, but the Args section adds little value; the ctx entry is not in the schema and the node_path note is too sparse. Trimming the Args block would improve signal.

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 one-parameter list tool with no annotations or output schema, the description states the returned fields and the resource. However, it omits usage guidance, safety profile, and parameter format details, leaving gaps an agent must guess.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the sole parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds only 'An HDA instance' for node_path—better than the schema's bare 'Node Path' but still lacking format or example. It also lists a 'ctx: MCP context' argument that does not exist in the schema, creating confusion.

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?

States a specific action (list) and resource (installed definitions of an HDA node's type) and enumerates returned fields (version, file, which is current). It does not name any sibling tool or explain how it differs from list_installed_hdas or get_hda_info, so it stops short of 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?

No guidance on when to call this tool, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like get_hda_info or list_installed_hdas. The description only describes output, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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