get_top_os_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that counting is by 'unique sessions' and that a period is used, but omits details like default build mode, sorting behavior, response format, or filtering nuances. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, efficient sentence that captures the core purpose without waste. However, it is arguably too terse to serve as a standalone guide, though it earns points for brevity and front-loading.

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?

Despite 11 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain key context: how OS versions are aggregated, the effect of filters like osName or countryCode, default periods, or whether buildMode is considered. It is minimally complete for a simple listing tool but falls short for this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't explain how parameters like osName or appVersion interact with 'OS versions' or provide examples. It remains neutral.

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 identifies the tool's output: top OS versions ranked by unique sessions for a given period. It distinguishes from siblings like get_top_os by specifying 'versions' rather than just OS names, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 such as get_top_os or get_top_app_versions. The description merely states what it returns without contextual exclusions or prerequisites.

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