nuget_catalog_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies what data is returned (dependency groups, description, etc.) but does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation or mention any required permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. The description adds some value beyond simple naming but lacks depth.

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 16 words, concisely stating the tool's purpose and what it includes. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with 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?

For a simple parameter structure (two required strings) and no output schema, the description adequately covers return content (dependency groups, description, etc.). It could be more complete by mentioning the return format or error scenarios, but it is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 describes the two parameters with 100% coverage ('NuGet package name' and 'Package version'). The description does not add any additional semantics, such as format constraints or case sensitivity. Given 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specific version details from NuGet'), clearly indicating it retrieves detailed information for a particular NuGet package version. It lists included fields (dependency groups, description, license, catalog metadata), making it distinct from sibling tools like 'nuget_package' (general info) and 'nuget_versions' (list of versions).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context for when to use or not use, and no alternative tools are mentioned. This forces the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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