Get sys version

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the raw endpoint path — nothing about auth/lockkey requirements, whether the device must be reachable, or the shape of the returned string.

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 fragment with zero waste. It is efficient, though its terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema read, the description conveys the returned datum (firmware version string) and the endpoint, which is minimally sufficient. It stops short of noting prerequisites such as device reachability or lockkey authentication that other tools in this family reference.

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 baseline is 4. Nothing in the schema needs explaining, and the description correctly doesn't waste words on phantom inputs.

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?

Names the specific resource (firmware version string) and the underlying endpoint /sys/version, which is concrete and unambiguous. It is distinguishable from siblings like hdhomerun_get_sys_model or hdhomerun_get_sys_features by resource, though it never explicitly says so.

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 guidance on when to call this versus hdhomerun_get_sys_model, hdhomerun_get_sys_features, or hdhomerun_check_firmware_model, which are the obvious near-neighbors. The agent must infer the use case (e.g., version check before firmware compatibility checks) entirely on its own.

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