ag_code_semver_compare

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses determinism, fixture verification, guest free access with rate limits, the optional api_key budget, and the Guild-signed provenance envelope. It does not describe error behavior, but for a pure computation tool this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then usage modes, then access/auth, then schemas. It includes two full JSON Schemas, which adds length but is necessary given the lack of nested schema in the input definition. No fluff or irrelevant information 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?

The output schema is already supplied, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers core semantics, supported operators, auth, rate limiting, and provenance. It could be more complete with examples or explicit mode requirements, but the provided information is sufficient for most callers.

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 payload fields are listed in the embedded JSON Schema, but the api_key parameter is only implicitly described as a Guild key. The schema marks all payload fields optional, while the description implies that each mode requires either {a,b} or {version,constraint}; this ambiguity is a gap. Additionally, the input schema allows additionalProperties in payload, while the described payload schema forbids them, creating a semantic inconsistency.

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's purpose with specific verbs: 'Compare semantic versions or test a version against a constraint.' It names the resource (semantic versions) and distinguishes the two primary use modes, making it easy for an agent to know when this tool applies.

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 explicit usage guidance: either compare {a,b} or test {version,constraint}, including supported operators and ANDed clause syntax. It also mentions guest rate limits and the optional api_key, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over a sibling alternative, though no direct alternative is obvious.

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