bouncer_safe_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety and network-touching profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: it reports which newer versions were skipped and the reason, which an agent could not infer from annotations or 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core behavior (what is returned) is front-loaded before the usage hint. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so well (newest passing version plus skipped versions and reasons). It stops short of specifying the exact return shape or how version ordering/range edge cases are handled, which is a minor but real gap.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the semver range example and the default of any stable version. The description merely echoes the range concept, adding little beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (returns the newest version of a package) and a precise scope (only versions passing every Dep Bouncer check, optionally constrained by a semver range). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling check-style tools because it resolves to a concrete installable version rather than a verdict.

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?

"Use it to pick what to install instead of a blocked release" gives explicit context for when this tool is the right choice. It does not name a specific alternative sibling (e.g. bouncer_check_upgrade) or state exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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