List immutable post versions

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'newest first' indicates ordering, and 'including exact bodies and SHA-256 digests' informs about return content. The title's 'immutable' aligns with the read-only/idempotent hints, and no contradictions exist.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, plus essential details. Every word is informative and no content is wasted.

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?

The description covers the tool's core purpose, ordering, and return content, which is sufficient for a simple read operation with a well-defined schema. It omits explicit mention of the 'limit' parameter's behavior, but the schema provides range constraints, making the description mostly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies 'identifier' identifies the post via 'for one post', but does not explain the 'limit' parameter's meaning or how it affects results. Partial compensation, but not complete.

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 returns the stored content-version history for one post, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('content-version history'), and is distinguishable from siblings like list_posts and get_post. The mention of 'newest first' and 'exact bodies and SHA-256 digests' adds specific scope.

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 clearly scopes usage to 'one post' version history, providing context that it is not for listing posts or fetching a single current post. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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