List workflow versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine context the annotations don't: results are ordered newest first, the live version is flagged, and versions are created on every deploy — useful for interpreting the output.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the underlying model, then the follow-up tools. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies ordering, the live marker, and cross-tool routing, which is everything an agent needs to call and act on it.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the source of the id ('from list_workflows or create_workflow'), so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing beyond it, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List one workflow's deployed versions') with scope details: newest-first ordering and a live marker. It is clearly distinguishable from list_workflows, which lists workflows rather than their 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_workflow for reading/comparing a version's graph and to rollback_workflow for restoring an earlier one, and the 'every deploy creates a version' line establishes the context in which this tool applies. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it, but the alternatives are named.

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