list_config_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description carries less burden. It adds the fields returned but does not disclose potential behavioral details like pagination, ordering, or whether all versions are returned at once.

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 sentences: first sentence states what it does, second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, no fluff, front-loaded with the most important 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?

Given one parameter, read-only operation, and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the key aspects: what is listed (versions with fields) and why to use it (audit, compare). It is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with parameter 'slug' described as 'Configuration slug to list versions for'. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score 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?

Description clearly states the tool lists every version of a config with specific fields (version number, config payload, creator, timestamp). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_config (single version) and list_configs (list configs) by focusing on listing versions of a single config.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use: 'Use this to audit history or compare revisions before update_config or delete_config.' This gives clear guidance on context and alternative operations without being verbose.

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