List note versions

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

Discloses ordering (newest first) and that it lists versions by path. No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it is mostly transparent but does not mention error behavior or permissions.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and key details, no waste. Perfectly concise for the provided information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core functionality but lacks information on return format, error handling, or when to use this vs other list tools.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'path' (the file path) but does not describe 'projectId' at all. This leaves the optional parameter entirely unexplained.

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 it lists version history of a file by path, ordered newest first. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_note (current content) and list_notes (all notes).

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 implies when to use (to see version history by path) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or comparison to other tools.

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