list_module_versions

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

No annotations are present, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It discloses the output format (JSON object) and sorting order (semantic version descending), but omits details such as authentication requirements or behavior when no tags exist. This is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured with Args/Returns sections and is relatively concise. However, the opening sentence and the 'Devuelve todos los tags' line are somewhat redundant, costing a minor efficiency point.

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 1-parameter list tool, the description provides essential information: purpose, output format, and sorting. However, it lacks usage guidance and discussion of edge cases, making it not fully complete.

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 has no descriptions, and the description adds only a brief explanation with examples ('service_name: Nombre del servicio...'). This gives some context beyond the schema title but does not fully define the valid values or how the service name maps to a module.

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 clearly states the tool lists available versions (git tags) of a Terraform module, using a specific verb and resource. It also mentions sorting by semantic version, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_module or search_modules.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, so an agent would have to infer usage from the function name alone.

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