gtm_list_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns only 'headers' (not full versions) and orders them 'newest first,' but it does not mention the include_deleted parameter's behavior, potential pagination, or explicitly confirm it's a read-only operation. These are meaningful behavioral gaps given the absence of annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no waste. The core action and ordering are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds a practical use case and a pointer to an alternative. Perfectly sized.

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 straightforward list tool with an output schema present, the description covers the primary purpose and usage context. However, it omits key behavioral details such as the handling of deleted versions (include_deleted default) and does not explicitly state that it's a read-only operation. Given the lack of annotations and the presence of an optional flag, this is noticeably incomplete but not critically so.

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 for the three parameters (account_id, container_id, include_deleted). However, it provides no explanation of them. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description fails to clarify their roles, defaults, or relationships, which is a notable shortfall at low coverage.

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 action ('List container version headers') and the ordering ('newest first'), making it distinct from siblings like gtm_get_version (which retrieves a specific version's details) and gtm_get_live_version. The purpose is unambiguous and easily differentiable.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to find a version to roll back to,' providing a concrete scenario. It also mentions that 'The live version is reported by get_live_version,' effectively pointing to an alternative for a specific need. While it doesn't exhaustively exclude other siblings (e.g., gtm_get_version for full details), the guidance is sufficient for common use cases.

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