system_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' prefix is consistent with that. The description adds useful disclosure of the payload contents (API version, Go version, components), which partly compensates for the absent output schema, but says nothing about auth, error behavior, or whether the daemon must be reachable.

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?

One tight headline sentence plus a labeled Args block, front-loaded with the operation and its read-only nature. Nothing is padded, though the section header and blank line formatting are slightly heavier than needed for a single optional argument.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, its read-only nature, the returned fields, and the parameter's meaning. The remaining gap is the lack of routing guidance relative to system_info/system_df, which is minor for such a simple tool.

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 carry the parameter burden, and it largely does: 'target: Target name from config; omit for the default' explains that the value is a configured target name and that omission selects the default. That is more meaning than the bare 'Target' title in the schema, though it does not give examples of valid target names.

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 and resource: return Docker version details, enumerating the fields (API version, Go version, components). This is clearly separable from neighbors like system_info, system_df, and system_events. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus system_info or system_df, which are the obvious near-neighbors. The only usage-adjacent note, 'omit for the default', concerns the target argument rather than tool selection. An agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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