generate_semver_bump

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses a cost of 0.005 USDC on Base L2, implying a paid operation, but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, return format, or failure behavior if payment is insufficient. The payment signature requirement is only in the schema, not in the description.

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 with a parenthetical pricing note. It is concise and front-loaded with the core functionality. The pricing note is relevant but could be considered extraneous; still, it does not detract significantly.

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 paid tool with a required paymentSignature and a payload that must contain specific data, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the expected input format, output format (e.g., a string like '1.2.3'), or the requirement for a valid payment signature. The lack of an output schema makes this a more significant gap.

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 100%, but the descriptions for both parameters are generic ('Input parameters or JSON string payload' and 'Base L2 USDC micropayment signature or transaction hash'), providing no tool-specific meaning. The description adds only that it is based on conventional commit prefixes, which is vague for a payload containing commit messages or version history. It does not explain how to structure the payload.

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 a specific verb ('computes'), resource ('next semantic version'), and scope ('major, minor, patch, prerelease') based on conventional commit prefixes. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which perform 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 purpose implies usage (when a version bump is needed), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No sibling alternatives exist, so no exclusion is necessary, but the description does not specify what inputs the payload should contain or how to provide commit history.

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