arduino_cli_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the purpose (verification) and that it outputs a version, but does not mention behavior such as exit codes, stderr output, or whether it invokes external process. However, the tool is simple and the behavior is largely implied by the name and description. Without annotations, a 3 is appropriate since the description adds basic context but not deep behavioral detail.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action and output, the second gives explicit usage timing. Front-loaded and efficient.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, timing, and the output (version). Could improve by noting expected output format (e.g., exit code or exact version string), but given the tool's simplicity and the lack of any schema to compensate, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially complete. The description does not need to explain anything about parameters. A baseline of 4 for 0 params is granted, and the description's focus on version reporting aligns with the tool's no-input nature.

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?

Description clearly states the tool confirms availability of arduino-cli and reports its version. The verb 'confirm' plus 'report version' specifies the exact action and resource. Distinguished from sibling tools by naming the toolchain verification purpose before compile/upload.

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?

Explicit guidance to call this first to verify the toolchain before compile/upload. This provides both when to use (before compile/upload) and context (verification step). Though no explicit alternative is mentioned, the instruction is clear and sufficient for a version-check tool with no siblings competing for the same role.

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