List package 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 behavioral burden. It states what is listed but omits whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior (despite a pageToken parameter), and what fields each version contains. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the core action and scope without any extraneous words.

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 5-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It omits pagination, return format, and prerequisites, but the schema covers most parameter semantics and the core purpose is adequately conveyed. It is minimum viable but leaves clear gaps.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters (location, projectId, repository, packageName). The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides; the parenthetical about image tags/digests is marginally useful but not a parameter specification. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb ('Lists') and resource ('versions ... of one package'), and the parenthetical example clarifies that versions are image tags/digests. It is specific enough to distinguish from ar_list_packages (which lists packages, not versions of a package), though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus ar_list_packages or ar_list_repositories, nor any prerequisites. The phrase 'of one package' implies a dependency on a known package, but no explicit when/when-not or alternatives are given.

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