open-context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It adds valuable context by mentioning 'cache' (indicating data persistence behavior) and specifies 'GitHub releases' as the external source, which helps the agent understand data freshness and provenance.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action verbs. Every word earns its place: 'Fetch and cache' (actions), 'Next.js versions' (resource), 'GitHub releases' (source). Zero redundancy or waste.

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 simple single-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description adequately covers the essential behavioral context (caching, source). Minor gap: doesn't specify what information is returned (release notes, changelog, assets), but sufficient for an info-fetching tool.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'version' parameter well-documented with examples. The description mentions 'Next.js versions' which aligns with the parameter but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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') with clear resource ('Next.js versions') and source ('GitHub releases'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by specifying Next.js technology specifically, fitting the pattern of other sibling tools while remaining uniquely scoped.

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 siblings like get_react_info (Next.js is React-based) or get_node_info, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions. It merely states what the tool does, not when to invoke it.

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