go_version

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 describes a read-only fetch operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. While the read-only nature is implied, additional behavioral context (e.g., cache behavior, freshness) is absent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences totaling about 20 words, with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action ('Fetch info and go.mod contents') and then specifies the return values. Every word adds value.

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 an output schema, the description compensates by stating it returns 'version metadata and parsed dependency list from go.mod,' which provides sufficient high-level context. However, it could detail the structure of the dependency list or mention whether multiple versions are handled. Overall, it is mostly complete for a simple fetch tool.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (module and version). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches info and go.mod contents for a specific Go module version, and explicitly indicates it returns version metadata and a parsed dependency list. This distinguishes it from siblings like go_module (which may fetch module info without version specificity) and go_vuln_by_module (which focuses on vulnerabilities).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like go_module, go_sum, or other version-specific tools. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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