get_version_info

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 accesses changelogs for breaking changes and new features, indicating a read-only behavior. However, it does not describe error handling, rate limits, or what happens if a package is not found.

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 two sentences, each serving a purpose: the first defines core functionality, the second highlights recent enhancements. No unnecessary 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 the lack of output schema, the description provides a good overview of what the tool returns: version info, available versions, breaking changes, and features from changelogs. It could be more specific about the output format, but it is largely sufficient.

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 description adds value by explaining that the tool provides 'breaking change detection' and 'available versions', which clarifies the purpose of the fromVersion and toVersion parameters. This goes beyond the schema's basic definitions.

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 it gets version info, available versions, and breaking change detection for npm packages, with specific verb and resource. It also mentions included features from changelogs, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_packages or get_migration_guide.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as compare_packages for comparing packages or get_migration_guide for migration steps. Context signals indicate sibling tools but no usage rules are given.

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