Get compatibility context for one exact version

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states 'the server is never given a codebase and compares nothing for you' and explains that an 'unknown' availability is a normal result, not an error, pointing to limitations and sources_checked. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 four sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is somewhat verbose with rhetorical phrasing ('What does... you already hold?'), but every sentence adds distinct information and there is no redundancy.

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 has a simple one-target input and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers usage boundaries, error semantics (unknown availability), and sibling distinctions. It does not need to describe return values due to the output schema.

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 detailed descriptions for target.namespace, target.name, and target.version, including exact-version constraints. The description reinforces the exact-version requirement and adds that the tool takes one target so no argument order matters, but it does not deeply compensate for the 0% schema coverage indicated.

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: 'What does one exact release declare and state about compatibility' and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool check_compatibility by noting it is for a single pinned target. The verb 'get' plus resource 'compatibility context' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: 'Call this when a single target is pinned and you want its declared constraints and reviewed changes.' It also gives clear when-not-to-use guidance: 'Do not call it with a version range, a repository path, or source text' and contrasts with check_compatibility's ordering rules. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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