yaaif_file_artifact_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the HTTP GET method, implying a read-only operation, and discloses the session prerequisite. Yet it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, mention pagination, or describe error/edge-case behavior (e.g., missing artifact name).

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the HTTP endpoint and the prerequisite. Every clause 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?

The description covers the essential inputs and the read-only nature, but without an output schema it does not describe the return format (e.g., array of version objects, fields included). It also omits potential caveats like pagination or error handling. For a simple list operation it is adequate, but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that artifact_name can be session-scoped or prefixed with 'user:', and explains that session_id can be omitted if a session is ensured. This goes beyond the schema's bare string types and helps the agent construct valid parameters.

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 states a specific verb (list) and resource (versions of an ADK artifact) with scope ('session-scoped or user:-prefixed'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling file tools like yaaif_files_list or yaaif_load_artifacts by focusing on version history, and even mentions the exact HTTP endpoint.

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?

It gives a clear context for when to use this tool (to list versions) and a prerequisite (pass session_id or call yaaif_dev_session_ensure first). However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like yaaif_file_artifact_delete or yaaif_load_artifacts, leaving some inference to the agent.

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