get_yanked_versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately discloses that the tool lists all yanked releases and provides context on why they are yanked. However, it does not mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations, though for a read-only listing tool this is minimal but acceptable.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and scope. No wasted words; every phrase contributes to understanding.

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?

For a simple, no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (a list of yanked PostgreSQL releases) and the rationale. Sibling tool context adds clarity, but the description alone is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information because none exists.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource ('all PostgreSQL releases flagged as yanked') plus the reason for yanking. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cves or get_exploits, which focus on security issues.

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 is used to retrieve yanked versions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Usage is implied from the purpose rather than explicitly guided.

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