get_api_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Retrieve' clearly signals a non-destructive read operation, and there are no apparent side effects to disclose. It does not explicitly label itself as read-only, but the semantics are unambiguous for a zero-parameter info endpoint.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the tool's purpose efficiently, every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately specifies what will be returned (version and date). The only minor ambiguity is the exact nature of 'date,' but this is not significant enough to lower the score given the simplicity of the operation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed; this aligns with the baseline for 0-parameter tools where no additional semantics are required.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource: Hudu instance version and date. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on specific entities like assets, companies, flags, etc., so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or alternatives. Its use is implied—one would call it when needing version or date information—but there is no stated context, exclusions, or mention of alternative tools. Given the unique purpose, this is acceptable but not explicit guidance.

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