alternative_distribution_package_versions__deltas__list

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds minimal context beyond that—it specifies the HTTP endpoint and the 'belonging to' relationship—but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior, response format, or any required authentication. Given the annotations cover safety, this is an adequate but not rich disclosure.

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 concise, one sentence, and front-loaded with the action ('List the deltas'). It also includes the API endpoint in brackets, which is useful for an agent reading API documentation. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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 list operation with no output schema, the description is sufficient for invocation. It clearly identifies the resource and its parent ('alternative distribution package version'), and the schema documents pagination parameters. It could be slightly more complete by stating that the response is a paginated list or indicating the relationship to alternative_distribution_package_deltas__get, but overall it covers the core information for correct use.

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 provides full coverage (100%) for all three parameters: id, limit, and next_url, each with descriptive text. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantic beyond what the schema already states. With schema coverage this high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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: 'List the deltas belonging to an alternative distribution package version.' It uses a specific verb 'List' and the resource 'deltas' scoped to a package version, which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like alternative_distribution_package_deltas__get (which retrieves a single delta) and alternative_distribution_package_versions__variants__list (which lists variants, not deltas).

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 implies when to use the tool (to list deltas for a given alternative distribution package version) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. There is no mention of when a different tool would be more appropriate, such as alternative_distribution_package_deltas__get for fetching a single delta. The usage context is clear from the verb and resource, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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