system_version

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 known. The description goes beyond annotations by specifying the return dict keys (Version, ApiVersion, MinAPIVersion, etc.), adding useful behavioral detail about output content. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but those are less critical for a read-only version call.

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 three sentences: one core action, one usage context, one sibling distinction, plus a concise return format. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what is needed: what the tool returns, when to use it, and how it differs from a sibling. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% (trivially). Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't mislead.

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 'Return Docker server version information' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool system_info by noting that system_info reports runtime state instead, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly positions this tool as 'the first thing to check for feature availability' and contrasts it with system_info, which reports runtime state. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and an explicit alternative, satisfying both usage and exclusion criteria.

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