获取版本信息

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the resource is NapCat/OneBot version info; it does not describe the response shape or whether any request-specific behavior applies, which is acceptable for a zero-parameter read but not a value-add.

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, front-loaded sentence contains the complete meaning without any filler. Every word contributes to identifying the resource.

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?

This is a trivial, no-parameter, read-only operation with annotations covering safety. The description tells the agent exactly what information to expect. No output schema is present, but for a version-info getter the description is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4 and no compensation is needed.

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 ('获取' / get) and a precise resource ('NapCat/OneBot版本信息'), which immediately distinguishes this tool from sibling getters such as get_status, get_login_info, and get_online_clients. The scope is unambiguous.

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 usage whenever the agent needs NapCat/OneBot version information, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over related tools or mention any exclusions. For a simple no-parameter getter this is adequate, yet it leaves routing to inference.

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