get_device_versions

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

With no annotations, the description takes on full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful details: versions are ordered oldest-first, version numbering semantics, and that each entry includes timestamp and OID. This goes beyond a simple 'returns versions' statement, though it does not cover permission requirements or error cases.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then provides essential details in a structured order. Every sentence carries useful information without redundancy. It is highly concise and well-organized.

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?

Given the tool's modest complexity, the description covers the key aspects: what is returned, how the node is interpreted, ordering, and content of each entry. An output schema exists, so detailed return-value documentation is not strictly needed. Missing details like the exact output schema or edge-case behavior are minor, and the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters (node, group) with high coverage. The description adds value by explaining that node can be an exact name or a unique partial name, which clarifies the matching behavior beyond the schema's 'full name or unique part'. The group parameter is not mentioned, but the schema covers it, so the description supplements rather than repeats.

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 'Return' and the resource 'all available configuration versions for a device'. It also clarifies partial-name matching, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_devices or get_device_status that deal with device lists or status rather than version history.

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 a clear use case: retrieve configuration versions for a device by name. It provides context about node matching (exact or unique partial) but does not explicitly mention when to choose this over sibling tools like get_diff_between_versions. There is no exclusions or alternative guidance, but the context is sufficient for a straightforward listing tool.

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