list_versions

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

No annotations present, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: result cap (limit capped at OPENPROJECT_MAX_PAGE_SIZE), non-standard total behavior (not a full count), and specific pagination instructions. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance that isn't obvious from the schema.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose then details. It's compact but dense with important information. No fluff. Slightly long but justifies it with crucial pagination/total caveats.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides complete guidance: what it returns (total caveat), how to page, and parameter semantics. For a list tool with 4 optional params and no output schema, this is well-rounded and sufficient.

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 explains limit (capped, page size), search (case-insensitive substring), and project (context for the search stop). Offset is implied via next_offset. Given these explanations, it adds significant meaning beyond bare parameter names.

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?

Clear verb+resource with explicit scope: 'List versions globally or for a specific project, optionally filtered by a case-insensitive name substring.' It provides the two main dimensions of filtering (project and search), distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_grids or list_projects.

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 explains when to use the tool and how to paginate: 'Page until next_offset is null.' It also states the limitation without project. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, though the context suggests it for listing versions.

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