clasp_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It gives no information about side effects, read-only nature, output format, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool that may interact with remote scripts.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no waste. However, it is so under-specified that it fails to convey necessary context, making it less effective than a slightly longer but more informative description.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the tool returns and how it behaves. 'List versions' provides no such information, leaving the agent without crucial details to predict the tool's outcome.

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 input schema has one parameter (rootDir) with a description covering 100% of its semantics. The description 'List versions' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 and resource ('List versions'), which is clear enough to indicate the action. However, it is vague about what 'versions' refers to (project versions, deployment versions, etc.) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like clasp_list or clasp_version.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states the action without context or exclusions. The sibling tools list suggests possible overlap, but no explicit differentiation is provided.

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