RRT Version Overview

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context: this tool renders a UI widget intended for humans and reads every configured target, as opposed to rrt_version's narrower primary-target return. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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: a one-line summary, a statement of output nature, and two sentences of sibling routing. Each sentence earns its place, key information is front-loaded, and there is no fluff or repeated structured data.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed for correct selection and invocation: what the tool displays, that it is human-oriented rather than data-oriented, and which sibling tools to use for different needs. The read-only and idempotent behavior is already covered by annotations, so no critical context is missing.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter semantics to add. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools with complete schema coverage, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly focuses on behavior and alternatives rather than inventing param guidance.

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 opens with a specific phrase, 'Version target map,' and names exactly what is represented: each configured file, kind, and current version. It also distinguishes this dashboard from rrt_version and rrt_release_check, and contrasts with rrt_version's narrower primary-target return, so an agent can select it correctly among siblings.

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 explicitly routes the agent: call rrt_version when primary-target values are needed, and rrt_release_check for secondary/pin target consistency. It also implies the intended use case—rendering a dashboard for a human to inspect—while explaining that this tool reads every configured target, giving clear selection guidance.

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