versions_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose that the operation is read-only, whether pagination is required (though hinted via parameters), or any other behavioral traits like rate limits or required permissions.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or the concept of 'version headers', leaving the agent partially informed.

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 description coverage is 60%, with descriptions for maxPages, pageToken, and includeDeleted. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'container version headers (summary)', and the scope 'for a GTM container'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like versions_get (full details) and versions_delete by focusing on listing summaries.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like versions_get. The description implies usage for listing version headers, but does not provide context for when this is appropriate or when to use other version tools.

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