list_flow_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or safe to call. It only describes the input parameters, not the behavior or side effects.

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 concise sentence that includes all essential information: the action, the resource, and the key optional features. No extraneous words, front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality. It could mention the return format (e.g., list of version objects) or default ordering, but it is largely 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?

The schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by summarizing the purpose of pagination and deployment provider filter, explaining the role of limit/offset and deployment_provider_id beyond their individual schema descriptions.

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 tool lists saved versions of a flow, with optional pagination and deployment provider filter. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('flow versions'), differentiating it from sibling tools like get_flow_version, create_flow_version, etc.

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 implies when to use this tool (to list versions) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like get_flow_version for a single version or activate_flow_version for activation.

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