Get gallery version chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the tool is safe and repeatable. The description adds useful behavioral context: it merges two sources, orders the results, and deduplicates them. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them. One minor gap: no mention of whether it handles missing or malformed links, but overall transparency is strong.

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 of 16 words with no wasted text. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could be slightly more structured by adding a second sentence to clarify parameters or usage, which would improve completeness without harming conciseness. As is, it efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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?

Despite having annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse for the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested object, many siblings). It does not explain what 'official chain metadata' or 'detail-page newer-version links' are, how ordering/deduplication works, or how the parameters relate to these sources. The output schema covers return structure, but the overall behavioral context is insufficient for confident use.

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 must explain the parameters. It does not. The description mentions 'official chain metadata' and 'detail-page newer-version links' but does not map these to any parameter (site, gallery, galleryUrl). The agent gets no guidance on how to specify the gallery, select the site, or use the galleryUrl parameter. This is a critical omission for a tool with 3 parameters including a nested object.

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 uses a specific verb ('Combine') and clearly identifies the resource ('gallery version list'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming the two data sources (official chain metadata, detail-page newer-version links) and the operations performed (ordering, deduplication). This makes the purpose unambiguous and clearly distinct from tools like eh_find_latest_gallery_version or eh_get_gallery_metadata.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many siblings (e.g., eh_find_latest_gallery_version, eh_compare_gallery_versions), an agent cannot determine when this tool is preferred or when a different tool would be more appropriate. The usage context is only implied, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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