package_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned fields, including prerelease and withdrawn flags, and implies a read-only query. However, it doesn't mention version list limits, ordering, pagination, or data-source caveats, which could matter for an agent relying on 'newest releases.'

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 and well structured. The first sentence front-loads the resource and returned data in a compact list; the second gives concrete usage guidance. No filler or 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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's core purpose and output contents sufficiently. The only notable gap is not clarifying whether 'newest releases' is a limited list or all versions, though the output schema may resolve this.

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 0%, and the description adds no specific meaning to 'name' or 'ecosystem' beyond what the schema already shows. The enum values are self-explanatory, but the description doesn't explain the relationship between the package name and ecosystem, nor any formatting or required registry context.

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 resource ('package') and the information returned (summary, source repository, latest stable release, newest releases with flags). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like package_changes and search_packages by focusing on what a package is and its existing versions.

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 gives concrete use cases: 'pick an upgrade target' and 'check that a version has not been withdrawn.' This is clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or say when not to use it.

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