history

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

With no annotations supplied, the description is responsible for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states the action without mentioning read-only status, output format, potential side effects, authentication requirements, or any other operational details. This is insufficient for a tool the agent might invoke.

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 a single, direct sentence with no extraneous words. It conveys the essential action efficiently, though it could be structured to include more behavioral context without sacrificing conciseness.

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 list operation with one parameter, the description is minimal but incomplete. It does not describe the return format, whether versions are chronological, or any pagination/limiting behavior. Without an output schema, more detail on what the tool returns would be expected.

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 provides only a 'name' field with no description, and schema_description_coverage is 0%. The description clarifies that 'name' refers to the model for which versions are listed, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema and partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 clear verb ('list') and resource ('saved versions of a model'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_models', which might list models rather than versions, but the purpose is specific enough to be unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_models', 'get_model', or 'revert'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditional usage instructions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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