check_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the operation is read-only, which is the key safety fact for a mutation-averse agent. However, it says nothing about what constitutes a failure result, error behavior, or cost of scanning many tags.

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?

Two tight sentences: the core question first, the safety qualifier second. Nothing is padded, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what the tool returns (a boolean verdict, offending labels, etc.) and how strict/published_file alter the result. It defines the check conceptually but leaves result interpretation to inference.

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 100%, so repo, strict, and published_file are already documented in the schema. The description never references strict or published_file, so it adds no meaning beyond the provided field descriptions; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a precise check: whether each version label names exactly one code state across tags in a git repository. The resource (version labels, tags, repo) is specific, though the verb is framed as a question rather than an action, and no sibling tool is named for contrast.

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?

There is no guidance on when to run this versus siblings like would_tag, explain_label, or compare, and no prerequisites stated beyond needing a repository. 'Read-only' hints at safe usage but is not a routing condition.

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