get_story_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 states 'List versions' but doesn't describe what a 'version' includes (e.g., metadata, content changes), how results are formatted (e.g., list, paginated), or any constraints (e.g., permissions, rate limits). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence ('List versions of a story.') that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is zero wasted text, and it directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with one parameter. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., output format, error handling), parameter semantics, and usage context. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'a story' which implies the 'story_id' parameter, adding minimal semantic context. However, it doesn't explain what a 'story_id' is (e.g., format, source) or any validation rules. With one undocumented parameter, the description partially compensates but doesn't fully clarify parameter meaning.

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 'List versions of a story' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('versions of a story'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_story' (which fetches a single story) and 'fetch_stories' (which lists multiple stories), though it doesn't explicitly mention this differentiation. The purpose is specific but could be slightly more precise about what 'versions' entails.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a story_id), exclusions, or related tools like 'restore_story_version' (which operates on versions) or 'get_story' (which might return current version). Usage is implied by the name and purpose, but no explicit context is given.

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