Public version history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by clarifying that it 'does not download files' and is not a complete developer list, which preempts potential misconceptions. This goes beyond the annotations and is useful for agent behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the exclusions are stated concisely. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with a robust output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers the key points: scope (public, per OS), exclusions (not developer, no downloads). It does not mention pagination, but the schema defines defaults and limits, so this is a minor gap. Overall sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 50% (slug and aurora_version have descriptions; page and page_size do not). The description mentions no parameters and does not compensate for the undocumented pagination fields. An agent would have to guess the meaning of page/page_size, though defaults provide some hint. This is a clear gap.

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?

States the specific action ('Get') and resource ('public history returned by the app card for this OS'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the developer release/draft list, which separates it from sibling tools like list_my_app_versions. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides context that this is for public history of a specific OS and clarifies it is not the developer list, implying when to use alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool or state a direct when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a full routing guide.

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