get_package_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the action but does not disclose behavioral nuances such as how the 'limit' parameter affects the claim of listing 'all' versions, whether pre-releases are included, or the result ordering. The description's 'all available versions' claim conflicts with the existence of the limit parameter.

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 begins with the verb 'List' and immediately conveys the core purpose. It includes no redundant words or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description mentions the key output fields (publish dates, dist tags) but does not explain the optional parameters or their effect on the result. The 'all' claim is misleading given the limit parameter. Overall, the description is adequate but leaves gaps regarding behavior and edge cases.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents each parameter clearly.

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 a specific verb ('List') and specifies the resource ('available versions of a package') with distinguishing details ('publish dates and dist tags'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_package_info and get_downloads by focusing specifically on version history.

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 its use case (when you need package versions) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of sibling tools or scenarios, but the purpose is clear enough to infer usage.

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