list_asset_versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the list operation. It doesn't disclose ordering, pagination, whether soft-deleted versions are included, or any permission requirements, so the agent cannot anticipate the tool's behavior beyond the literal action.

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?

Six words, front-loaded with the action, with zero waste. Every word earns its place and the core purpose is readable at a glance.

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 one-parameter list operation the description is close to adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations it leaves ordering, pagination, and response shape unspecified. It also doesn't clarify the boundary with get_asset_history, which an agent could plausibly confuse for version listing.

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 100% — the single asset_id parameter is fully documented in the schema with type, format, pattern, and description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all versions of an asset'), making the operation unambiguous. It distinguishes from get_asset_version (singleton fetch) and other list_asset_* siblings by naming the resource, though it doesn't explicitly disambiguate against get_asset_history, which could also surface version-related information.

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 offers no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives like get_asset_version, get_asset_history, or the other list_asset_* tools. An agent must infer the correct choice purely from the name and resource noun, with no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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