list_versions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the scanning location, the exact criterion for what counts as a version, the return shape, and sort order. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a simple listing tool, though it does not cover error handling or permission requirements.

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, dense sentence provides all necessary information without filler. Every clause adds value: what is listed, where it scans, the version criterion, the return structure, and the sort order.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description explicitly specifies the return object format and sorting, making the behavior fully predictable. For a parameterless read-only list tool, this is complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies; no additional parameter information is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('installed game versions') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like install_version and list_modpacks. The scanning behavior and version-detection rule add precision.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving existing installed versions and provides context about how detection works. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only listing nature is unmistakable next to installation tools.

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