modrinth_list_project_versions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by explicitly listing the fields in the response, which is valuable given there is no output schema. No contradictions.

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, focused sentence that directly states the action and the returned data, with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and keeps the detail relevant.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the return fields, which helps the agent understand what to expect. It omits potential details like pagination or ordering, but these are not critical for a basic listing tool.

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 only parameter id_or_slug is described in the schema ('Project slug or id.'), and the description repeats that without adding further detail. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra semantic meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the exact action ('List a project's published versions') and enumerates the returned fields (version_number, id, type, loaders, game_versions, download url), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like modrinth_get_project (project metadata) and modrinth_search_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 tool's purpose is self-evident from its name and description—use it to list versions of a known project. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for modifications use modrinth_modify_version), but the context of sibling tools provides enough clarity.

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