get_package_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a 'JSON list of versions/tags,' which adds useful behavioral context about the output format. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a tool interacting with GitHub's API.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first, followed by usage guidelines, parameters, and returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. However, as a GitHub API tool, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or error handling, which are common contextual needs. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: 'owner' (GitHub username or organization), 'package_type' (e.g., 'container'), and 'package_name' (e.g., 'rtfd'), including examples. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail constraints like valid package types, preventing a perfect score.

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's purpose: 'Get versions for a specific GitHub package.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('versions'), and domain ('GitHub package'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_github_packages' beyond mentioning it as a prerequisite, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 includes an explicit 'USE THIS WHEN' section that provides clear guidance: 'You found a package using list_github_packages and want to see available tags/versions.' This directly states when to use this tool versus alternatives, naming a specific sibling tool as a prerequisite, which is excellent for agent decision-making.

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