acc_list_item_versions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the audit trail context beyond the annotation, but does not discuss pagination, ordering, or any other behavioral traits. This adds some value but is not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, resource, and a relevant industry context (ISO 19650) economically.

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 list operation with an output schema present, the description is adequate. It covers the purpose and context, while pagination is left to the schema. No critical information appears missing, though it could mention pagination explicitly.

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 describes 'item_id' and 'project_id' but leaves 'page_limit' and 'page_number' without descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-level semantics, so it relies on self-explanatory names and the existing schema descriptions. Since coverage is 50%, it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'version history of a file', and clarifies the audit trail content ('who uploaded which version when'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling file tools like acc_get_item or acc_upload_file.

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 mentions the ISO 19650 traceability requirement, implying the appropriate context for use, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Therefore, it provides clear context without exclusions.

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