get_rust_crate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get the latest version', implying a read operation, but fails to disclose important behaviors such as caching, error handling (e.g., if the crate does not exist), or rate limits. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool interacting with an external API.

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 a single sentence of 9 words, delivering the core information without any fluff. Every word is meaningful; there is no redundancy or excessive detail.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but could be improved by briefly noting that the result includes version and metadata (since output schema exists, this is less critical). However, for a simple lookup, it is functional.

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 100% (the only parameter 'crate_name' is described as 'The crate name'). The tool description adds that the crate is from crates.io, which provides context for the parameter value, but does not significantly enhance the semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 specifies the exact action ('Get the latest version'), the resource ('Rust crate'), and the source ('from crates.io'). It clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which target other ecosystems (e.g., npm, RubyGems).

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 implicitly suggests usage for Rust crate lookups via the name and content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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