system_version

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates read-only via '[READ]' and lists returned components. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like authentication needs, rate limits, or error cases. For a simple read tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 brief, front-loaded with '[READ]', and structured into a purpose sentence followed by parameter documentation. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points).

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values or example output. For a simple version query, it is adequate but could be more complete by noting the format or scope (e.g., Docker Engine vs CLI 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains the 'target' parameter's purpose ('Target name from config; omit for the default'), adding meaning beyond the schema fields. This clarifies usage and default behavior.

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 explicitly states it reads Docker version details, including API version, Go version, and components. The prefix '[READ]' clarifies the operation type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'system_info' by focusing on version details, though not explicitly differentiating.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Lacks any context about prerequisites, when not to use, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'system_info' or 'overview'.

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