get_bioconductor_version

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

Annotations establish read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the description needn't repeat safety details. It adds a valuable policy constraint about not implicitly recommending devel releases, which goes beyond structured annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the mapping behavior and then the most important constraint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description is adequate for the simple lookup, but it leaves the parameter format and sibling-tool routing under-specified.

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?

There is one required parameter (r_version) with 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions mapping R but adds no format, expected syntax, or examples for the parameter, so it fails to compensate for the schema 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 states a specific verb-resource pair: mapping R versions to official Bioconductor releases. It implies a lookup operation distinct from sibling package-version checks, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

It gives a clear behavioral rule ('never recommend devel implicitly'), which implies usage context. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus siblings like check_package_version or check_package_compatibility.

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