list_workflow_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds useful context by clarifying that both drafts and committed versions are returned, which is a key behavioral trait. But it does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, error cases, or permission requirements. For a simple list operation this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple, the schema fully documents all parameters, and the description covers the core purpose distinctly. No output schema exists, but the description plus schema are sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could mention the return shape of a 'version row', but that is not essential.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter details beyond what the schema already provides; the phrase 'workflow family' simply mirrors the schema description for workflow_id.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('every draft and committed version row in a workflow family'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_workflows' (which lists families) and 'get_workflow_version' (which fetches a single 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?

The description implies usage for enumerating all version rows of a workflow family, and the schema clarifies that workflow_id is a family ID. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, such as when to choose this over 'get_workflow_version'.

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