LightCMS

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

Annotations establish readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return structure ("list of versions with timestamps"), which compensates partially for the missing output schema. However, it omits behavioral details like ordering, pagination, or whether deleted versions are included.

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?

Extremely efficient at two sentences: first establishes purpose, second establishes return format. No redundant information or filler.

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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and safety annotations, the description is appropriately complete. The mention of return structure compensates for the lack of output schema, though ordering or pagination details would improve it further.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single content_id parameter, the schema carries the full burden. The description mentions no parameters, so it neither adds nor subtracts meaning, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 uses specific verbs ("Get") and resources ("version history") and implies bulk retrieval via "list of versions," distinguishing it from sibling get_content_version (singular). However, it does not explicitly clarify when to use this versus the singular version retrieval tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_content (current state) or get_content_version (specific version). No mention of prerequisites or error conditions.

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