get_schema_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, ordering, pagination, or behavior when the subject does not exist, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 short sentence with zero wasted words: 'Get all versions of a schema.' It is front-loaded and communicates the essential action and object immediately.

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 simple read-only tool with fully documented parameters and strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, since there is no output schema, it would be better to clarify what the response contains or how versions are represented; the current text leaves return behavior to the agent's inference.

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 100%, and both required parameters (cluster and subject) are already described as 'Cluster name' and 'Schema subject.' The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but with full schema coverage the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('all versions of a schema'), which directly distinguishes it from the sibling get_schema_version. The scope is unambiguous and an agent can immediately tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'all versions' implicitly signals that this is the right tool when every version is needed, and that get_schema_version is for a single version. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, so the guidance remains implied rather than direct.

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