bw_adso_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a non-mutating 'get' operation, but it does not explain what the version history contains, how it is ordered, whether it returns full details or just summary entries, or any potential limitations.

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 zero filler, making it very concise. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting useful contextual details that would help an agent use the tool confidently.

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?

Although this is a simple one-parameter tool, the absence of annotations, output schema, parameter elaboration, and usage guidance leaves an agent to infer both the meaning of 'id' and the shape of the returned version history. The description is not fully actionable on its own.

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 'id' parameter, but it does not. The name 'id' and the ADSO context imply the parameter identifies an ADSO, but the description never states what the id refers to, its required format, or that it is required.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ADSO version history'), so an agent can tell this is a retrieval operation for ADSO version data. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling version tools like bw_datasource_versions or bw_trfn_versions, but the ADSO qualifier makes the target object 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bw_adso_details, bw_adso_get_xml, or the version-history tools for other object types. There are no prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions provided.

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