files-list_versions

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature or any side effects. For a listing tool, it is reasonable to assume it's read-only, but the lack of explicit disclosure lowers the score.

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?

Single sentence, 13 words, no repetition or fluff. Clearly front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 low complexity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It hints at output content ('current version info and version history'), though it could be more explicit about return format.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (item_id). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers, so 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 clearly states the action (list), the resource (versions of a file), and scope (all versions, includes current and history). It distinguishes from sibling file tools by focusing on versioning.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies it should be used when version history is needed, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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