list_prompt_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It not only states read-only listing behavior but extensively documents all 10 response fields, clarifies the versioning domain model, and explains what 'active' means. This adds significant value beyond the tool name.

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 structure is clear: a two-sentence purpose, a well-formatted response-fields list, and a domain model note. The field list is justified by the absence of an output schema. Minor redundancy exists between 'List all versions' and the subsequent use of 'Returns all versions,' slightly padding the opening.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description appropriately compensates by documenting every return field. The explanation of the versioning lifecycle and the pointer to list_prompts make this a complete resource for a low-complexity read operation. It could note ordering or limit behavior but is otherwise thorough.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Unique prompt identifier (from list_prompts)') with 100% coverage. The description's guidance to use list_prompts reinforces this but is slightly redundant with the schema's parenthetical. The baseline of 3 is appropriate, with no significant gaps to punish or extra insight to reward.

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 opening 'List all versions of a specific prompt' is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_prompts (list prompts, not versions) and get_prompt_version_detail (singular version), and the added 'track changes over time' gives purpose context.

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?

Provides clear workflow context with 'Use list_prompts first to find the prompt_id' and explains the typical active/archived versioning model. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the similar sibling get_prompt_version_detail or state when not to use this tool, stopping short of a 5.

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