Check peer compatibility between two package versions

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

Disclosure goes beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by clarifying no filesystem access, return types (true|false|'unknown'), and semantics of 'unknown'. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences with critical information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description fully explains purpose, behavior, parameter usage, and result interpretation. No gaps identified.

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% with clear descriptions for all 5 parameters. Description adds no further semantic detail for parameters but provides examples and return value context, maintaining baseline adequacy.

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 explicit verb ('check') and resource ('peer compatibility between two package versions'), and distinguishes from sibling 'check_compatibility' by noting its different scope.

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 states when to use (static SemVer check against curated data) and when not to (no filesystem access, contrast with unimplemented check_compatibility). Includes guidance on interpreting 'unknown' results.

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