ds_list_workflow_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'List historical versions,' offering no detail about safety (e.g., read-only nature), pagination behavior, or what the response contains. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no structured annotations.

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, but the 'Args' section duplicates schema information without clear structure. It is not incorrectly verbose, but it doesn't add enough value to feel fully earned.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return format, ordering, or pagination details. It only names the parameters and the basic action, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect from the response.

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 description repeats parameter names with minimal elaboration ('Project name', 'Process-definition code', 'Number of items to return'), adding little beyond the schema's titles and types. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it doesn't provide meaningful semantics like parameter constraints or formats.

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 starts with 'List historical versions of a workflow,' which clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (workflow versions). It is distinguishable from siblings like ds_get_workflow or ds_list_workflows, though it doesn't explicitly call out these alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ds_get_workflow or ds_rollback_workflow_version. The description only states the function, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage contexts.

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