wafle_system_versions_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. Description adds context about the exact contents (deployed versions of api, plugin, dashboard, themes) and the operational scenario, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then a usage note. Zero waste; every word adds value.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description fully explains what is listed (components) and why/when to use it (before deploy/rollback). Annotations cover safety, and no output schema is needed for such a simple listing.

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?

Tool has zero parameters; baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), so the description does not need to compensate.

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 'List the deployed versions of every wafle component' with specific component enumeration (api, plugin, dashboard, themes). It names the exact resource and action, distinguishing it from deployment/rollback siblings.

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 says 'Use before deploying or rolling back', giving clear timing context. Does not mention alternatives, but siblings like 'wafle_system_release_deploy' and 'wafle_system_release_rollback' are implied. A clear usage directive without explicit exclusions merits a 4.

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