list_package_versions_for_authenticated_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does well by disclosing the return format (array of package-version objects with timestamps and type-specific metadata), the state filter behavior, and the 30-day restoration window for deleted versions. It also specifies the required token scope. It doesn't discuss potential errors or rate limits, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 compact, with only two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add relevant details about filtering, return shape, and auth requirements. The included docs link is a helpful add-on without bloating the text. Every sentence adds value.

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 list endpoint with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, how to filter by state, the auth scope, and a reference link. It does not explicitly describe pagination behavior for page/per_page, but those parameters are standard and self-explanatory. Overall, the tool is well-described for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 documents state, package_name, and package_type, and the description restates the state semantics without adding new information. It does not explain the 'page' and 'per_page' parameters, which are undocumented in the schema (60% coverage), so the description provides minimal additional value for parameter understanding. The mention of type-specific metadata in the response is helpful but not parameter-related.

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 clearly identifies the action ('List all versions of a package') and the resource ('owned by the authenticated user'), using a specific verb and noun. It also differentiates from siblings like list_packages_for_authenticated_user (list packages) and get_package_version_for_authenticated_user (get a single version), making the purpose 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 gives clear context on when to use the tool and how to filter results, noting the default 'active' state and the 'deleted' alternative with the 30-day restoration window. It also mentions the required read:packages scope, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state 'use this when...' relative to sibling tools, so it lacks the fully explicit when-not guidance.

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