d_check_last_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the return type ('Returns the version string'), listing supported ecosystems, and mentioning auto-detection capabilities. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second explains the return value and benefit. The extensive ecosystem list is necessary for completeness, and every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with full schema coverage but no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, scope, return value, and usage context. A minor gap exists in not detailing error cases or response formats, but overall it provides sufficient context given the annotations and schema richness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning ecosystem prefixes and auto-detection, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get the latest version') and resource ('library/package from its official registry'), with explicit scope ('Supported ecosystems...'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'a_semantic_search' or 'b_index_codebase' by focusing on dependency version checking rather than search or codebase operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to help you avoid using outdated dependencies'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage for dependency management scenarios, though no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are mentioned.

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