e_check_package_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds behavioral context by stating it fetches from 'official registry' and listing supported registries. No contradictions 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second explains usage with registry list and example. No filler; every sentence is essential. Front-loaded with primary action.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and the description covers input semantics well. However, it does not describe the return value format (e.g., version string or object). For a tool that fetches version info, specifying the output structure would improve completeness.

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, 'package', which already describes the prefix pattern. The description expands on this by listing all supported registries and providing multiple concrete examples, adding value beyond the schema by clarifying the range of acceptable prefixes.

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 it fetches the latest version of a package from an official registry. It lists 14 supported registries, making the resource and action unambiguous. Sibling tools are unrelated (e.g., semantic search, index codebase), so there is no confusion.

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 explains how to use prefixes for different registries with examples like 'pip:requests'. It implicitly covers when to use this tool (checking latest version from official registry) and provides context for correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the tool is distinct among siblings.

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