arbos_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 does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, given the nature of version queries, it's reasonable to infer safety. A 3 is appropriate as it adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 extremely concise at 6 words, with no wasted text. It is front-loaded and directly states the function.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It lacks details on the return format or what 'ArbOS version' means, but for a version query, this may be sufficient. Could be improved by specifying the expected output, but not critically needed.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter info because none exist. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, which is appropriate.

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 it returns the ArbOS version. The verb 'running' implies a retrieval, and the resource is specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools, which focus on other blockchain data like gas prices, balances, and transactions.

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 over alternatives. While it's a simple version query, there is no mention of prerequisites or context. Sibling tools are many, but without explicit differentiation, an agent might not know when to choose this over similar informational tools.

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