get_course_versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns version history with version numbers and dates, which is helpful behavioral information. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 well-structured with clear sections (main description, use cases, return information). Each sentence serves a purpose, and there's no wasted text. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the return information into the main description, but overall it's efficient.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only 0% schema description coverage, the description does a reasonable job but has gaps. It explains the purpose, use cases, and return format, but doesn't cover error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or detailed behavioral traits. For a tool with minimal structured data, it provides basic completeness but lacks depth for confident agent usage.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'code', but the description compensates well by explaining in Swedish: 'Kurskod att hämta versioner för' (Course code to get versions for). This provides essential semantic meaning that the schema lacks. Since there's only one parameter and the description clarifies its purpose, this earns a strong score despite the low 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Hämta alla versioner av en kurs' (Get all versions of a course). It specifies the verb ('Hämta' - Get) and resource ('versioner av en kurs' - versions of a course), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_course_details' or 'get_curriculum_versions', which could be related but serve different purposes.

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 'ANVÄNDNINGSFALL' (Use cases) section provides clear context for when to use this tool: tracking course changes over time, comparing old and new curricula, research/analysis, and understanding requirement/content evolution. This gives practical guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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