open-context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It partially succeeds by disclosing the caching behavior and GitHub releases as the data source. However, it lacks details on cache TTL, error behavior for invalid versions, rate limiting, or what specific information (assets, changelogs, dates) is returned.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. Information density is high, with the action ('Fetch and cache') front-loaded and the data source ('from GitHub releases') clearly appended.

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 simple single-parameter schema, the description adequately covers the input side but remains vague about what 'information' is returned (release notes, binaries, metadata) and lacks an output schema. For a read operation with caching side effects and no annotations, additional context on cache semantics or return structure would improve completeness.

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%, with the version parameter already documented with type and examples ('2.15.0'). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 uses specific verbs ('Fetch and cache') and clearly identifies the resource ('Ansible versions from GitHub releases'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_docker_image or get_python_info by explicitly naming Ansible as the target technology.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_docs or search_docs. Given the existence of sibling documentation tools, the agent lacks criteria to determine whether to fetch GitHub release metadata or browse general documentation.

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