db_list_available_versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It states that the tool lists versions, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly mention that no changes are made, nor does it discuss error handling, permissions, or potential side effects. The lack of explicit behavior disclosure is a minor gap for such a simple read-only tool.

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, using two short sentences plus an Args/Returns format. It is front-loaded with a clear action and immediately provides parameter and return details without any fluff. The structure is optimal for a simple tool.

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's simplicity (single parameter, output schema) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides the essential information but omits usage context and behavioral nuances. It would benefit from a note about when to use (e.g., before db_start_version_upgrade) and explicit read-only confirmation. Still, for a basic listing operation, it is reasonably 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?

The description adds meaning to the only parameter (database_id) by stating it accepts 'The database ID or label', which clarifies that both forms are valid. This goes beyond the bare schema type 'string' and helps the agent know what value to pass. For a single-parameter tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 the action (list available versions) and the resource (database engine upgrades), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like db_start_version_upgrade by focusing on listing rather than performing the upgrade. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other listing tools (e.g., db_list_plans), though the context implies it's specific to upgrade versions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be called before initiating an upgrade, nor does it reference sibling tools like db_start_version_upgrade or db_get_maintenance_updates. The phrase 'for database engine upgrades' gives some context but does not explain the workflow or prerequisites.

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