List agent versions

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's 'Read operation' is redundant, but it adds real value by disclosing the 403 authorization gate and the newest-first ordering. It does not describe return shape or error behavior beyond the auth failure.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns and how it is ordered, followed by the access precondition. No filler sentences; every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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, the description compensates by explaining that entries are configuration snapshots and that pagination is cursor-based (via the schema). It omits the concrete fields inside each version entry, which is a modest remaining gap for a list tool.

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 every parameter (cursor, account, agent_id, page_size) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List the immutable versions of an agent'), plus ordering ('newest first') and what each entry represents ('point-in-time snapshot of the agent's configuration'). It is distinguishable from the singular retrieve_agent_version by implication (list-all vs fetch-one), but does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition: configuration access is required and callers limited to using the agent receive a 403. That is a clear when-you-can/when-you-cannot signal. It stops short of pointing to alternatives such as retrieve_agent_version or list_agents for a single version or the agent inventory.

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