list_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one genuinely useful trait: every write creates a version, so the list is effectively a write history. It omits ordering, pagination, permissions required, and whether the operation is read-only, all of which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and the key behavioral fact front-loaded, and the parenthetical adds real value rather than restating the name. Nothing extraneous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with zero parameters the description's burden is light. It is nearly complete, though it could note ordering (e.g., newest first) and how version identifiers connect to restore_version.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter details are needed or missing.

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 verb and resource ('List the knowledge base's versions'), which is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get or restore_version, but the resource scope makes the purpose clear.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb: an agent can infer this is the way to enumerate versions, presumably before calling restore_version. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as get.

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