cb_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not explicitly say this is a read-only listing, whether it has side effects, or what type of response is returned. 'Component versions' hints that it is informational, but that is not a clear behavioral 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 extremely brief but at the cost of informativeness. It is a fragment rather than a sentence and adds little beyond the tool name. Being short is not the same as being concisely structured.

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 may document return values, but the description still fails to define what 'components' refers to or how this tool relates to the cb_ siblings. An agent could not confidently distinguish cb_versions from similar no-argument informational tools such as cb_updates or cb_software. The description is not complete enough for reliable tool selection.

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 properties, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The no-parameter baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing the description must clarify about arguments.

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 is only the noun phrase 'Component versions.' It names a resource but provides no verb or action, so it does not actually state what the tool does. It largely restates the tool name cb_versions without adding clarifying meaning.

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 guidance about when to use cb_versions versus the many sibling tools in the cb_ family, such as cb_updates, cb_state, or cb_software. No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned. An agent gets no help choosing among these related tools.

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