fmod_studio_version

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, or that the tool can mutate state (via the 'value' parameter). It only states it contains version information, which is insufficient for a tool that can both read and write.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it includes a colon and reference format that may confuse an AI agent. It is front-loaded but could be more straightforward (e.g., 'Read or write the Studio tool version information.').

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain the structure of the returned object. For a tool returning 'an object containing version information,' the description should list typical version fields (e.g., major, minor, patch) to help the agent understand the return value. The description is incomplete for effective use.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters, each with a clear description. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is high.

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 states it is an object containing version information for the Studio tool, which indicates the resource. However, it does not clearly specify that the tool can both read and write the version (implied by the parameter), nor does it differentiate it from other tools like fmod_get_property or fmod_set_property. The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks precision.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fmod_get_property or fmod_set_property. The description does not mention prerequisites or context in which version information should be accessed. This leaves the agent without decision-making support.

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