get_subject_versions

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 clearly states what the tool returns ('RETURNERAR: Lista över alla versioner med versionsnummer och giltighetsdatum' - Returns: List of all versions with version numbers and validity dates), which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds 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 (purpose, use cases, returns, tips), each containing precisely one sentence that earns its place. The Swedish text is direct and avoids redundancy. Despite having multiple sections, every element serves a distinct purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, list output), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering essential aspects. It explains the purpose, provides rich usage scenarios, describes the return format, and offers follow-up guidance. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like safety profile or error handling, but for a read-oriented tool, this is reasonably complete.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful context about the 'code' parameter by explaining it represents 'Ämneskod att hämta versioner för' (Subject code to get versions for), which clarifies this is a subject identifier rather than a generic code. While it doesn't provide format examples or constraints, it adds essential semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tillgängliga versioner av ett ämne' (Get all available versions of a subject). It specifies the verb ('hämta' - get) and resource ('versioner av ett ämne' - versions of a subject), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_subject_details' beyond mentioning it as a follow-up action.

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 excellent usage guidance with a dedicated 'ANVÄNDNINGSFALL' (USE CASES) section listing four specific scenarios: tracking changes over time, comparing current vs. previous curricula, researching curriculum changes, and understanding subject development progression. It also includes a 'TIPS' section that explicitly directs users to 'get_subject_details' for comparing specific versions, creating clear alternative usage pathways.

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