Api build retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds that the payload is version-related but says nothing about response shape, whether authentication is required, or whether it's a lightweight probe suitable for health checks.

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 with no filler beyond the mild redundancy of 'API endpoint that'. Nothing an agent needs is buried.

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?

For a no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the return format unspecified (e.g., a version string field), which is the one piece of information an agent would still need.

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 the schema baseline applies and no parameter semantics are needed. Nothing in the description contradicts this.

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 resource and outcome: returns the application's build version. An agent can tell what the tool produces without opening the schema. It does not differentiate itself from similar diagnostics such as health_retrieve or csrf_retrieve, which keeps it below a 5.

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 to call this (e.g., verifying deployment version, checking an upgrade took effect) and no reference to alternatives. Usage is only inferable from the word 'version'.

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