get_curriculum_versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of versions with dates, which is useful context. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'hämta' but not explicit), error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description adds some value but leaves gaps for a mutation-free tool.

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 sections for purpose, usage cases, and return value, making it easy to scan. It's appropriately sized with no redundant sentences. However, the usage cases could be more integrated into the main description for better flow, slightly affecting structure.

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 1 parameter with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return info but lacks details on parameter semantics and behavioral context. It's adequate for a simple read operation but incomplete for full agent understanding, especially without annotations to fill gaps.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'Läroplanskod' (curriculum code) indirectly in the purpose but doesn't explicitly describe the 'code' parameter's semantics, format, or constraints. This leaves the parameter meaning unclear beyond what's inferred, failing to fully address the coverage gap.

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 versionshistorik för en läroplan' (Get version history for a curriculum). It specifies the verb 'hämta' (get) and resource 'versionshistorik' (version history), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_curriculum_details' or 'get_course_versions', which would require a 5.

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 usage cases ('Spåra revideringar', 'Jämföra olika versioner', 'Forskning om läroplansutveckling') that imply when to use this tool—for tracking revisions, comparing versions, or researching curriculum development. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or alternatives (e.g., vs. 'get_curriculum_details' for current data), keeping it at an implied level.

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