lattice_get_versions

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool returns (versions and outdated status) but lacks details on side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or safety. As a read operation, it likely has no destructive effects, but this is not stated. Insufficient for a 0-annotation tool.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a purpose. The first states the action and scope, the second provides usage context. No redundancy, front-loaded with key 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple read tool. However, it doesn't describe the output structure (e.g., format of outdated indication). Agents may need more detail on what 'outdated' means or return fields. Lacks completeness for a fully autonomous agent.

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?

Tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by clarifying that the output includes outdated status. Baseline 4 is appropriate as no parameter documentation is needed.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves runner versions across workers and identifies outdated ones. The verb 'get' and resource 'runner versions' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling 'lattice_upgrade_worker' by being a pre-check tool.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use before 'lattice_upgrade_worker' to determine upgrade necessity. This provides strong usage context. However, it does not mention when to avoid using it or alternative conditions, hence a 4.

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