prompts_list_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that data comes from S3 and that it relies on 'versions.json if present', which signals a potential absence condition. However, it does not say what happens when versions.json is missing, whether the operation is read-only, or what the response contains.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: 'list' states the action, 'prompt versions for an agent' states the resource, and 'from S3 (versions.json if present)' adds relevant source context.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and is relatively simple, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify expected output and behavior in edge cases. It omits what occurs when versions.json is absent, what the return structure looks like, and how this tool relates to the sibling version/get/current 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented agent_id parameter. It only says 'for an agent', which adds little beyond the schema property name 'Agent Id'. It does not explain the expected format, how to find the agent_id, or any constraints.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'prompt versions for an agent', and adds the source 'from S3 (versions.json if present)'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like prompts_get_version or prompts_get_current, but the plural 'versions' and 'list' make the core action clear.

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 usage: use this tool when you need the list of prompt versions for an agent. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over prompts_get_version, prompts_get_current, or prompts_create_version, and names no alternatives or exclusions.

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