List Versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only ('List') and that versions are immutable, and it enumerates return fields. However, it doesn't address practical behaviors like ordering, pagination, errors, or handling of unknown project_id.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every remaining phrase adds useful detail (immutable, UTC, summaries, SHA-256). No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the low complexity (one required parameter) and that an output schema exists, the description is largely adequate: it names the resource and output fields. It loses a point because the parameter relationship is left implicit and there is no usage guidance, but nothing critically blocks a correct call.

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 0% and the description does not explain project_id. Although 'project_id' is fairly self-explanatory and required, the description never connects it to the version listing or states that the versions are scoped to that project.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('versions'), and adds precisely what kind of data versions contain (immutable, UTC timestamps, summaries, SHA-256 checksums). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects or restore_version, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like restore_version or list_projects. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering/pagination, or what a caller should do before invoking it. The usage context is only implied by the word 'list'.

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