Package Versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful behavioral context (result ordering, maintenance-check framing, supported ecosystems) but says nothing about pagination, truncation at the limit, or behavior for unknown packages.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then usage rationale, then ecosystems. The ecosystem list is mildly redundant with the schema enum, but there is no padding or filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on scope, ordering, and the maintenance-check use case. The only gap is the absence of any tie-breaker guidance against the five sibling package tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the enum values and the limit default. The description repeats the ecosystem list and does not add format or syntax detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ('List recent released versions of a package'), adds the sort order ('most recent first'), and names the result fields (release dates). It is clearly distinct from package_downloads or package_dependencies, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like package_info.

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?

It offers implied usage ('pick a version or check how actively it is maintained'), which tells the agent the intent behind the call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as package_info or package_health, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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