tc_list_file_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the return format (count and versions with fields) and notes fields are 'as provided by the API,' giving extra behavioral context 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 at five lines, structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes value—purpose, parameter definitions, and return shape—without redundant or irrelevant text.

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 read-only list operation, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, required parameters, and return object structure. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the output schema (if present) would handle further details. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining project_id as 'Project the file belongs to' and file_id as 'File ID.' These explanations add meaning beyond the bare property names, though they are minimal and lack examples or constraints.

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 opens with 'List the version history of a file,' which is a specific verb + resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like tc_get_file and tc_download_file by focusing on version history rather than content retrieval.

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 provides a clear context: you use this when you need the version history of a file. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but no overlapping sibling exists for listing versions, so the guidance is sufficient.

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