Get File Versions (EVS)

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that a file with no prior versions returns a normal successful response with hasVersions:false, not a tool error. It also candidly states that the real version-list shape is unconfirmed, so raw JSON is passed through and fields should be treated as unstable until observed live.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and uses subsequent sentences for essential caveats about response shape and path discovery. It earns its length, though the path-discovery instruction is partially redundant with the schema description, preventing a perfect score.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the confirmed no-version response shape, flags the unconfirmed version-list shape, and explains the raw JSON fallback. It also provides the prerequisite discovery step, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, and the input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including EVS path format and the source of deviceId. The description adds usage guidance about discovering paths but no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Lists prior backed-up versions of a single file' via the evs/getVersions endpoint. It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like browse_folder/list_files and download_file by focusing on version history retrieval.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to use browse_folder or list_files first to discover the path to query, and the schema description warns against bare root paths and directs to list_files. It does not explicitly contrast with other file operations, but the read-only version-listing context is clear.

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