get_version

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It says the tool inspects the workspace and uses a 'SemVer confidence ladder' to resolve a version, but it never explains what that ladder is, whether the operation is read-only, what happens when no version is found, or what the returned value looks like.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler, and the key outcome—resolving a compatible version—is presented up front. The main drawback is that the dense 'SemVer confidence ladder' phrase sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the output format, failure behavior, and the meaning of the confidence ladder. It does none of these, and it also fails to position the tool among 15 doc-related siblings, leaving an agent to infer prerequisites and expected results.

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 baseline is 3. The description's reference to 'workspace dependencies' aligns with projectPath, and while it adds no new parameter-level detail, none is strictly necessary given the schema already defines both parameters clearly.

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 identifies a specific action—inspect workspace dependencies and resolve a compatible documentation version—which matches the tool name and distinguishes it from content-oriented siblings like get_doc or search_docs. The phrase 'SemVer confidence ladder' is unexplained jargon, which slightly blurs the purpose but does not hide the core action.

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 prefer get_version over sibling tools such as search_docs, get_doc, or check_api. The description implies it should be used when version resolution is needed, but it provides no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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