list_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies ordering ('newest first') and details the returned fields (id, versionNumber, status, live flag, name, creator, timestamp), which is important since there is no output schema.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero waste. The core action and output fields are front-loaded, and the follow-up action (rollback via restore_version) is presented efficiently as a second sentence.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly enumerating the returned fields and the ordering. It also covers the key downstream integration (restore_version), making the definition complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents site, locale, and documentId. The description reinforces that the listing is scoped to one locale, but adds no new syntax, format, or default behavior beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('version history') with clear scope ('in one locale, newest first') and enumerates the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_content (current content) and restore_version (action) by focusing on version history retrieval.

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?

It provides clear context: use this to see a content item's version history, and then pass a version's id to restore_version to roll back. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like get_content, but the downstream action clarifies the primary use case.

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