Nix Versions

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which suggests no destructive side effects. However, the description does not explicitly state side effects, authorization requirements, or other behavioral implications, so it provides only implicit transparency.

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, concise sentence with no superfluous words. It effectively conveys the purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand.

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 and the description is adequate given the presence of an output schema. It does not address potential error handling or edge cases, but these are likely covered by the output schema. Overall, the description provides sufficient context for a straightforward 'get history' operation.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The parameter descriptions are brief but clear ('Package name', 'Specific version to find', '1-50' for limit). The tool description does not add additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the 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 'Get package version history from NixHub.io' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource (package version history) and source (NixHub.io). It effectively distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'nix' by being more specific about the operation performed.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tool 'nix'. There is no mention of alternative conditions or scenarios, leaving the agent without clear decision-making information.

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