app_software_versions_list

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds key behaviors: return structure, cursor pagination, offset silently ignored, invalid filters return HTTP 400. This significantly supplements the annotations.

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 three concise sentences plus a link. The main purpose is front-loaded, no redundancy, every sentence adds value (purpose, return structure, pagination, external reference).

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 complexity (8 parameters, many optional) and lack of output schema, the description covers return fields, pagination behavior, error conditions, and includes a link to full spec. It is complete for a read-only list endpoint.

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 88%, so the schema already describes parameters well. The description does not add meaning beyond what's in the schema for individual parameters, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List versions for an app-software' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like app_software_version_get (which gets a single version) and app_software_version_create/update by focusing on listing.

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 pagination details (cursor-based, offset ignored) and a link to the spec, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. However, since it's the only listing tool for app-software versions, usage context is clear.

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