get_program_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a list of versions with dates, which is basic output information. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination behavior for large result sets. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic return statement.

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 (purpose, use cases, returns) and appropriately sized. Each sentence serves a purpose: stating the tool's function, providing context through use cases, and specifying the return format. However, the Swedish language might create minor accessibility issues for non-Swedish speaking agents, though the structure itself is 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, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it states the purpose and return format, it misses critical information: parameter documentation, behavioral constraints, error handling, and differentiation from similar version-tracking tools. For a tool with one required parameter and no structured documentation elsewhere, this leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use it effectively.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description doesn't mention the 'code' parameter at all, leaving it completely undocumented. While the tool has only one parameter, the description fails to explain what 'code' represents, its format, or valid values, creating a significant gap in understanding how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 as 'Hämta versionshistorik för ett program' (Retrieve version history for a program), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like get_program_details (which likely shows current state) by focusing on historical versions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_course_versions or get_subject_versions, which handle similar version tracking for different entities.

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 implied guidance on when to use this tool: for tracking program changes, comparing old/new program plans, and understanding vocational education development. This gives context but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like get_program_details for current information or search_programs for finding programs.

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