supervisor_get_supervisor_info

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

No annotations provided; the description only hints at read-only behavior ('get info') and lists the expected data. It does not disclose potential side effects (though none expected) or other behavioral details. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, complete sentence that front-loads the key information. No wasted words; every part contributes to understanding.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It provides a brief overview of the return values, which is sufficient alongside the output schema.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by stating what the tool returns (version, channel, healthy), which is not evident from the empty schema.

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 a specific verb ('Get info') and names the resource ('the Supervisor itself') and clarifies the content (version, channel, healthy). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like supervisor_get_addon, supervisor_get_core_info, etc.

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 implies that this tool is for retrieving supervisor information but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites. Usage context is clear but lacks guidance on exclusions.

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