get_version_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It indicates a read-only operation with 'Get' and describes the return values, but it does not disclose potential error conditions, rate limits, or data source behavior. This is adequate basic transparency but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences plus a minimal Args block, with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds necessary information: the main action, the exact output fields, and the parameter format. No redundant words.

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?

With no output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates all returned components and explains the input format. It lacks edge-case handling (e.g., invalid version behavior), but for a single-parameter read-only tool, this is a minor omission. Overall, it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 schema only defines a string parameter named 'version' with no description. The description's Args block fully compensates by specifying the expected format ('PostgreSQL version string') and providing concrete examples ('16.4', '15.8'), making the parameter semantics clear despite 0% schema coverage.

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 returns a security status summary for a PostgreSQL version and lists the specific fields returned (EOL status, yanked status, CVE count, max CVSS score, exploit count, latest minor). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cves or get_exploits that focus on individual aspects.

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 implies the tool should be used when a comprehensive security overview is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like get_summary or get_cves, nor does it state when not to use it. The listed return fields give some context, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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