get_versioned_setup_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the output shape (citation-backed commands, config examples, obsolete patterns), which implies a read-only retrieval operation, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, determinism, or whether results are cached/stale. Adequate but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the three returned artifacts (commands, config examples, obsolete patterns), with zero filler. It is dense but every clause maps to real output content.

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 read-only retrieval tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the substance of what comes back. The main gap is routing versus siblings like get_upgrade_steps, but the core call decision is covered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including enums and the 'do NOT pass latest' warning. The description only adds that commands are formatted for the project's package manager and scoped to a specific version, which lightly reinforces package_manager and target_version but adds little beyond the schema.

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-and-resource pair — returns installation commands, config file examples, and obsolete patterns for a specific library version — which is far more concrete than the tool name alone. It implicitly separates itself from check_dependency_compatibility and search_versioned_docs by being a setup-oriented, version-pinned guide, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_upgrade_steps or search_versioned_docs. The agent must infer from the name and description that this is the setup path rather than the upgrade or general-docs path.

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