get_tunnel_version_downloads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns download paths/URLs, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that each add value: stating the purpose, clarifying context, and explaining the parameter. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. Minor improvements could include combining sentences for better flow, but it avoids redundancy and waste.

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 tool has an output schema (which handles return values), zero annotations, and one parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral details like authentication or error handling, which are important for a tool that likely interacts with external resources (download URLs).

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'client_version', explaining it's optional and provides an example ('5.2.3'). Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this effectively compensates by clarifying the parameter's purpose and format, though it could note the version format more explicitly.

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's purpose: 'Returns the specific paths (URLs) to download specific versions of the SauceConnect tunnel software.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('paths/URLs'), and clarifies the context of 'tunnel' as Sauce Connect tool. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tunnel_information' or 'get_tunnels_for_user', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the parameter 'client_version' but doesn't explain scenarios for using this tool over other tunnel-related tools in the sibling list, such as 'get_tunnel_information' or 'get_current_jobs_for_tunnel'. There's no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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