List Versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds behavioral value beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool requires project context and that includeSuggestions returns the next major, minor, and patch numbers aligned with the spec's versioning strategy.

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?

Three focused sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the optional flag's significance is explained, and the prerequisite is stated clearly.

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 read-only list tool, the description covers purpose, statuses, the meaning of the optional flag, and the required context setup. It does not describe the exact return shape, and there is no output schema, but the missing details are minor given the simple list semantics and pagination parameters already documented in the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents skip, take, specId, and includeSuggestions. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that includeSuggestions returns the next version numbers expected by create_version, which is non-obvious value.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: list versions of an API specification, and adds the key differentiator of status values (draft/review/published/deprecated). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_version, compare_versions, and list_specs without needing to inspect schemas.

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 gives clear usage context: it is needed to obtain suggested version numbers for what create_version expects, and it explicitly calls out the prerequisite of calling set_context first. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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