version_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the [READ] nature, per-proxy endpoint behavior, and the caddy 'teaching note' exception. It does not detail return format or error conditions, but for a simple version-info tool, this is adequate context.

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 compact and front-loaded with '[READ] Version / build info.' Each sentence earns its place: purpose, proxy-specific endpoint details, caddy exception, and parameter explanation. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavioral nuances, and parameter semantics fully. It gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, including the caddy edge case.

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 schema has one optional parameter with 0% schema-level description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'target' is a proxy target name from config and 'omit for the default,' which adds meaningful usage detail beyond the raw schema properties.

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 tool fetches version/build info, identifies the exact proxy endpoints (traefik /api/version, haproxy /v2/info), and includes a specific note about caddy's lack of a version endpoint. This distinguishes it from the config/routing-focused sibling tools.

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 provides clear context by specifying that this is a read operation for version/build info and listing endpoint differences per proxy. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, though the purpose itself strongly implies its usage.

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