admin_version_overrides

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature (list), the admin-only restriction, the return granularity (one entry per platform ios/android/huawei), and the data semantics (YAML defaults, live DB override, merged effective values that drive /api/v1/version). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare 'lists overrides'.

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?

Three tightly-scoped sentences with zero filler. Each clause carries information: role gate, per-platform granularity, data-source semantics, downstream API linkage, and companion tool reference. Well front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 exists, so the description compensates by explicitly enumerating return structure (one entry per platform, fields for YAML defaults, DB override, merged effective). It explains the merged values drive /api/v1/version. Given it's a zero-param read tool with no output schema, this is reasonably complete, though it could mention auth/permission failure behavior.

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?

Tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage (strictly, an empty schema). Description clarifies what the returned data means (YAML defaults vs live DB override vs merged effective values), which adds interpretive semantic value. Baseline 4 for a zero-param tool 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?

Specific verb+resource: "List the per-platform version-gate overrides for the mobile app." Distinguishes from sibling admin_version_override_update clearly (list vs update). Clearly scoped to admin/mobile version-gate context.

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?

States SUPER_ADMIN only access requirement and notes the companion tool 'admin_version_override_update' for flipping the kill switch, providing clear context on when to use this read tool vs the mutation sibling. Lacks explicit when-not guidance but the role gate and companion-tool pointer are strong.

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