version_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral value beyond them: it discloses per-target response differences (traefik and haproxy return version data, caddy returns a teaching note because its admin API lacks a version endpoint) and names the source endpoints. It does not describe error behavior when a target is unreachable.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation type and resource, followed by the endpoint detail and an Args block. The caddy parenthetical is slightly verbose but earns its place by preempting a surprising response, so there is little waste.

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 simple parameterless-or-one-param read probe with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it tells the agent what comes back per target and that the target argument is optional. The main residual gap is that no output shape or failure mode is described, which matters a little given there is no output schema.

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 param, and it does: 'target: Proxy target name from config; omit for the default' explains the value's origin (config) and the default semantics. It does not enumerate valid target names, but the single param is otherwise well explained.

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+resource combination (retrieve version/build info) and goes further to name the underlying endpoints per proxy (traefik /api/version, haproxy /v2/info). No sibling tool performs this function, so it is trivially distinguishable, and the [READ] tag makes the operation type explicit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers it should call this when it needs build/version data. The only concrete guidance is 'omit for the default,' which is parameter-level, and there are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives — though no sibling offers an equivalent capability.

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