pin_safe

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

The description discloses the return format ({recommended_version, walk_log[]}) and implies read-only behavior, which aligns with annotations. It adds value beyond annotations by describing the output structure. Missing details on error conditions (e.g., no safe version found) keep it from being a 5.

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 very concise: three sentences covering function, usage, and return. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the key action, making it easy for the agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools, the description provides enough context for basic usage. However, it lacks edge case handling and does not explain how it differs from similar tools. Annotations partially compensate for safety and idempotency.

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 description coverage is only 40% (min_severity and constraint have descriptions). The overall description does not explain individual parameters like ecosystem, package, or include_prerelease. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent with incomplete information.

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 function: pinning the highest safe version below a severity tier with semver constraints. It provides specific use cases (writing package.json/requirements.txt, resolving dependabot). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_latest_version or get_vulnerabilities, which could also be relevant.

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 includes explicit 'USE WHEN' guidance for two specific scenarios, which helps the agent choose this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools for different contexts.

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