crate_versions

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists output fields but does not mention if all versions are returned (pagination limits), authentication needs, rate limits, or any ordering/filtering behavior. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 of 19 words, front-loaded with the action and resource, and efficiently lists the fields. No wasted words.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description provides the output fields but lacks explicit structure (e.g., array vs. object) and any mention of ordering, filtering, or limits. It is functional but not fully complete for an 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (one parameter 'name' with basic description 'Crate name'). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 applies.

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: 'List all versions of a crate' and enumerates the specific fields returned (version number, yanked status, license, crate size, creation date, download count). This distinguishes it from siblings like crate_info (single crate info) and crate_deps (dependencies).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., crate_info, crate_deps). It does not mention scenarios where this is appropriate or not, nor does it point to sibling tools for different use cases.

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