parse_semver

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely lists operations without stating what the tool returns (e.g., parsed components, boolean, or comparison result), how errors are handled, or any side effects. The ambiguity of 'compare' (since only one version parameter exists) further reduces transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the core actions and a key detail (range syntax). Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

This is a relatively simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, so the description doesn't need extensive detail. However, the lack of any indication of return values or behaviors for the 'parse' and 'compare' operations leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect after invocation, making it incomplete for a no-output-schema scenario.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters, giving 100% coverage. The description adds valuable semantic context by specifying the range syntax (npm-style ^, ~, >=, etc.), which clarifies how the 'range' parameter is interpreted and goes beyond the schema's generic example.

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 explicitly states the tool performs three related semver operations: parsing, comparing, and checking range satisfaction. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are unrelated text/data/format utilities, and leaves no ambiguity about the domain.

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 mention of 'npm-style ^, ~, >=, etc.' provides clear context for when the tool is applicable (npm/semver range checking). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but no sibling tool overlaps with semver functionality, so this context is sufficient for selection.

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