list_versions

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds a useful detail that each version records a change with before/after, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like ordering, pagination behavior (beyond schema fields), or any rate limits. This is adequate given the annotations 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 two concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded. The first sentence states what the tool does and the second adds a relevant detail about the content of versions. No wasted words.

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 tool lists versions with before/after, but with no output schema, the description does not specify the return format (e.g., fields like version number, timestamp, author). Pagination is covered by the schema, but ordering and exact response structure are not described. For a list tool, this is adequate but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (resource_type, resource_id, limit, offset). The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states the tool lists version history for specific resource types (agent, schema, trigger, mcp_server), with a specific verb and scope. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_version or compare_versions, but the 'list' action distinguishes it implicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_version for a single version or compare_versions for comparing two versions. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor any mention of alternatives.

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