Get version in Software Repository package

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint false), reducing the description's burden. The description adds the permission requirement 'view_software_repository', which is valuable beyond the annotations. No contradictions or additional behavioral traits are disclosed, but given the annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. It avoids repetition but could be slightly tighter (e.g., merging the first two sentences). No wasted words, and permission is stated separately. Effective for quick scanning.

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 presence of an output schema (handling return values) and full schema coverage for parameters, the description adequately covers what the tool does, how to identify the version, and the required permission. It does not explain the specific details returned, but that is expected to be in the output schema. A score of 4 reflects that it meets the needs for a read tool with rich annotations.

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 the input schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning or usage context for the parameters (e.g., no explanation of 'verbose' or 'response_format' beyond the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'version in Software Repository package', specifying it gets details by ID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'action1_get_software_repository_package' (gets package) and 'action1_get_update_package' (gets update package).

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 usage by stating it gets version details and requires 'Perm: view_software_repository', but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'action1_get_software_repository_package' or 'action1_list_software_repository'. The agent is left to infer context from the name and sibling tools.

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