List plan versions

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

The readOnlyHint already signals safe read behavior; the description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that edits apply to the active version and by listing the exact output row columns. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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, front-loading the resource and output structure, then adding the key edit-version caveat. No wasted words and the most useful information appears first.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema present, and readOnlyHint true, the description is complete for effective use. It covers what rows will contain and points to the sibling tool for modifications, leaving no critical gap.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are naturally satisfied. The description provides no parameter information, but none is needed; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 title clearly identifies the operation as listing plan versions, and the description identifies the resource and output format via 'rows [i,name,active,walls,rooms,m2,furniture,issues]'. It distinguishes itself from edit_variants by noting that edits are handled there, though the description itself lacks an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Get'.

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 gives context that this is for viewing plan versions and explicitly routes editing behavior to edit_variants with 'change them with edit_variants'. It does not explicitly state 'use this when you need to list/read versions', but the title and context make that reasonably clear.

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