audit_versioning

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing what the tool analyzes (patterns, gaps, inconsistencies), going beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, no wasted words. Highly concise and structured effectively.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the tool's purpose and what it produces.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter ('projectPath') already described. The description does not need to add more parameter semantics; 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 tool detects and audits API versioning patterns, specifies what it finds (path-based, header-based, version gaps, inconsistencies), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_breaking_changes or scan_public_api.

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 for versioning audits but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor mention alternative tools. Given the context of many sibling tools, some guidance would be beneficial.

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