Find latest gallery version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, providing a strong safety profile. The description adds that the tool resolves a chain and returns a version, but does not explain what happens if the chain is empty, what the format of the version string is, or how open-world results behave. Given the annotations, the bar is lower, and the description provides marginal extra context.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action ('resolve a gallery chain') and output ('latest semantic version'). It wastes no words, but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which explains return format), annotations (which cover behavior), and a clear purpose, the description is largely complete. It lacks edge-case guidance (empty chain, multiple candidates) and disambiguation from similar siblings, but the overall context signals compensate. For a tool with high annotation coverage and output schema, a 4 is appropriate.

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 0%, meaning the description bears the full burden of explaining parameters. While it doesn't detail each parameter (site, gallery, galleryUrl), the description implies these are used to identify the gallery chain. The context of 3 parameters (0 required) and a nested object is clear enough that an AI agent can infer that one of the identifiers must be provided. The sibling context further aids selection. However, explicit parameter guidance would improve this.

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 clearly states the tool resolves a 'gallery chain' and returns its 'latest semantic version', which is a specific verb-resource combination. However, it could more explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'eh_resolve_gallery' or 'eh_compare_gallery_versions', which also deal with gallery resolution and versioning.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'eh_get_gallery_chain' (which may just return the chain) or 'eh_compare_gallery_versions' (which compares versions). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing the gallery chain to exist, or when limitations apply.

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