timeweb_list_k8s_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is transparent, but the description does not disclose potential details such as whether results are paginated, if any authentication scopes are needed, or if there are any side effects. It is adequate for a simple listing operation but lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it does not contextualize the tool within the broader workflow (e.g., using versions before creating a Kubernetes cluster) or describe the expected response structure, which could leave an agent slightly uncertain about how to use the result.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters, and the only parameter 'format' is fully described with an enum and explanation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the action 'List' and the resource 'available Kubernetes versions', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like timeweb_list_k8s_clusters, which list clusters rather than versions, and no other tool provides this specific capability.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool, how it relates to cluster creation, or how it compares to alternative tools. There are no explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases mentioned, leaving the agent to infer when this endpoint should be called.

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