Module Compatibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Check' implies a non-destructive read, and an output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, but the description says nothing about auth requirements, whether it hits a remote API, or caching/rate-limit behavior.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier ('for a given core version') is placed where it reads naturally. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse for a tool with an undocumented parameter format.

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 output schema removes the need to explain return values, and the two parameters are conceptually covered. But with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves gaps in parameter format and behavioral context that an agent would have to guess at.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the two concepts ('project' and 'core version'), giving a conceptual mapping to project_id and core_version, but adds no format detail for the version string (e.g. '10.x', '9.5') or the meaning of the default.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (a project's releases for a core version), so an agent knows exactly what it computes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like module_versions, release_history, or module_dependencies, which an agent might confuse it with.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternative tools such as module_versions or release_history. The agent is left to infer the use case from the one-line purpose alone.

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