assess_solutions_by_version

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

No annotations provided. The description implies a read-only search, but does not disclose specific behaviors (e.g., what happens if no solutions found, or performance characteristics). Adequate but could be improved.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence explains the action, the second explains the use case. Highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of solutions with applicability flags). The description covers purpose and usage but lacks output details and edge-case behavior, making it incomplete.

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 67%, meaning two of three parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; for example, topK has no description in the schema and is not elaborated in the description. 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 verb (search/check) and resource (past solutions/workarounds, product version). It distinguishes from siblings like search_similar_tickets by focusing on version applicability.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'figure out if a known fix should already cover the customer's version, or if they need to upgrade.' No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the context is clear.

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