Get project versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting, required permissions, or what the result set contains.

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 focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise and the key resource is front-loaded, though there is room to add useful context without harming conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and only 33% parameter coverage, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return value shape, pagination behavior, or the meaning of the optional parameters, leaving an agent to infer important invocation details.

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 only 33%, with only 'projectKey' documented. The description does not explain startAt or maxResults, nor does it clarify pagination semantics, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('versions (releases) of a project'). The parenthetical 'releases' removes ambiguity, and the resource is distinct from the sibling tools, which cover projects, components, issue types, and roles.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you need versions or releases for a project. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention that it complements get_project or get_project_components.

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