get_file_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that each version includes its saved content and that restoring requires passing that content back or using restore_file_version. However, it omits details like ordering, pagination, or exact response structure. For a simple view-history tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second explains version content and restore options. No redundant or filler language is present.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, version content, and restore paths. It could mention ordering or whether all versions are returned, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward history-list operation. The description is complete enough for a user to confidently invoke the 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing cms_file_id as 'CMS file ID'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does tie the parameter to the concept of a CMS file but doesn't clarify format or constraints beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('View version history of a CMS file'), clearly identifying the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning restore alternatives (restore_file_version, update_cms_file), making its read-only history role unambiguous.

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 provides concrete guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it tells you to pass saved content back to update_http_function/update_cms_file or to use restore_file_version for restoration. It doesn't explicitly state 'do not use this for restoring,' but the contrast is clear enough. No exclusion criteria are given, but the usage context is well implied.

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