Tap

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

Complements annotations effectively by specifying what data is retrieved ('protocol version and connected runtime info') and explaining the operational purpose (compatibility checking). Adds meaningful context beyond the readOnly/destructive hints without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first establishes capability, second establishes usage context. Front-loaded with essential information, no redundant or filler text.

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?

Appropriate for a simple parameterless tool. Mentions what information is returned (compensating partially for missing output schema). Could optionally specify return format structure, but adequate given low complexity and strong annotations.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, establishing baseline 4. Description correctly implies no configuration is needed by focusing solely on retrieval action, matching the empty schema perfectly.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with clear resources 'protocol version and connected runtime info'. It effectively distinguishes from action-oriented siblings like tap_click and tap_nav by emphasizing information retrieval rather than interaction.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'verify the extension is connected and check version compatibility before running taps'. Provides clear temporal context relative to sibling tap operations, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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