get_component_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Get' signals a read-only operation and there is no contradiction, but the description does not clarify behaviors like default archived-version filtering, output shape, or access requirements. It is adequate but not detailed.

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 short, focused sentences with no filler. The action is stated first and the purpose is appended efficiently, making the description easy to scan.

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 simple list/read tool with one required parameter and fully documented schema fields, the description is largely complete. It gives the deployment-related purpose, while the schema covers parameter semantics; an output schema is not essential for this kind of straightforward version lookup.

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 all three parameters with descriptions, including the required component ID and optional inactive/numResults controls, so the baseline is 3. The description adds overall workflow context but no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get all versions for a specific component') and adds a clear workflow purpose ('find the version IDs needed for deployment'). It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself, but it clearly positions itself as a lookup step before deployment tools like deploy_component_versions.

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 second sentence gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it when version IDs are needed for deployment. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly mention alternative snapshot/version listing tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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