color_get_versions

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read operation, and the description matches that by describing a list operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., what it returns in edge cases, whether it can fail) beyond the annotation, which is acceptable for a simple read-only tool but does not exceed the annotation's coverage.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and target. It contains no filler, repeated schema information, or unnecessary clauses, making it highly efficient.

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 read-only listing tool with a full output schema and read-only annotation, the description is mostly complete: it specifies the action and resource clearly. It does not mention the distinction between local and remote versions (via version_type), but the schema already documents that parameter, so the omission does not create a gap in operational context.

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?

The input schema documents all four parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics (e.g., it does not explain how track_type or version_type affect results), so the baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 action (List) and the resource (all grade version names on a timeline item), immediately distinguishing it from sibling color version tools like color_get_version_count (which returns a count) and color_get_current_version (which returns the current version). The verb and object are specific and unambiguous.

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 this tool (when you need the names of all grade versions on a timeline item), but it does not provide explicit guidance about when to use alternatives such as color_get_version_count or color_get_current_version. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the comparative usage context implicit.

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