Server capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: 'Return' implies a pure read with no side effects, and it enumerates the specific facts disclosed (version, offline flag, data path, capability set). It does not mention auth requirements, cost, or whether the data path is sensitive, but for a zero-parameter local info call the remaining gap is small.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and then the four return fields in priority order. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must enumerate return values, and it does list all four. The one soft spot is 'which capabilities this build has,' which gives no hint of the shape or vocabulary of that list, leaving the agent unsure what it will be able to branch on.

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, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste words on inputs.

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 ('Return') plus the exact resources returned: version, offline status, local data location, and available capabilities. It is clearly a metadata/introspection tool, which implicitly separates it from the action-oriented siblings (check_url, check_number, check_message, extract_entities, open_case), though it never names them explicitly.

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 an agent should call this versus the check_* tools, nor any precondition such as 'call this first to discover whether offline mode is available.' The reader must infer the diagnostic/discovery use case from the returned fields alone.

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