list_gene_versions

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: results are limited to published versions, ordered chronologically, and include changelog entries plus previous_version_id links. It still does not state the read-only nature, pagination, or auth requirements, but the return-shape disclosure is substantive.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the scope constraint and the return contents are both front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 two-parameter read listing with no output schema, the description supplies enough about return contents (ordering, changelog, version links) to call and interpret it. Minor gaps around pagination and permissions keep it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters fully documented as the creator's username and the gene name, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The phrase 'by creator and name' merely echoes that mapping and adds no new syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (version history chain of a Gene), scoped by creator and name. This clearly separates it from mutating siblings like rollback_gene or publish_gene, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'version history chain' but the description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no pointer to related tools such as get_gene_detail or rollback_gene. An agent must infer the scenario.

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