List Node Versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it lists what each version includes (git oid, date, author, commit message) and the ordering ('newest first'). It also discloses the backend requirement (git/gitcrypt output), which is beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose is stated in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds useful detail about the version contents and a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of the schema.

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 a clear purpose, a complete schema, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description covers the key behavioral details (ordering, version contents, backend requirement). It could have explicitly mentioned pagination or the default limit, but the schema already covers the limit parameter, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a bit of context by mentioning the git oid, date, author, and commit message, which indirectly clarifies what the 'limit' parameter controls, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('stored configuration versions of a node'), and a clear ordering ('newest first'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_node_version and diff_node_versions by focusing on the list of stored versions rather than a single version or a diff.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need the list of stored configuration versions for a node. It also notes a prerequisite ('Requires the Oxidized 'git' (or 'gitcrypt') output'), which is useful context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the description's focus make the usage context clear.

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