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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the tool bumps a version, but does not disclose whether it validates the input format, what happens on invalid input, or what the output format is. This lack of detail reduces 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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that are front-loaded. Every word is meaningful and there is no redundancy. It earns its place efficiently.

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 has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not mention the output format or behavior, leaving the agent without complete information for simple usage like reading the resulting version.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions 'major/minor/patch' which relates to the 'release' parameter enum, but does not describe the 'version' parameter at all. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 'bump' and the resource 'semver version', specifying the possible increments (major/minor/patch). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like semver_compare or semver_parse by indicating it is used for incrementing versions when cutting a release.

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 includes 'When: Bump major/minor/patch when cutting a release', which provides explicit context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context makes it clear this is for incrementing, not comparing or parsing.

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