get_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does mention the return value type (a string) and provides an example format, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects (unlikely), authentication requirements, or error behavior. For a simple read-only tool, this is somewhat acceptable, but it could be more explicit about being a read-only, non-mutating operation. With no annotations, a score of 3 is reasonable as the description adds value by specifying the output format, but it lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: one line stating the purpose and one line describing the return value with an example. Every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.

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?

The tool is extremely simple: no parameters, no complex logic, and it has an output schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand what it does and what it returns. However, it lacks any guidance on when to use it (e.g., 'Use to verify connectivity' or 'Use before version-specific calls'). Given the complexity is low, this is nearly complete, but a small piece of usage context would make it fully complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (auto). The description doesn't need to explain parameters. It does add meaning by describing the return value and providing an example, which is beneficial given the tool's simplicity. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that baseline by clarifying the output.

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 the tool's purpose: to get the Home Assistant version. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it's distinct from the sibling tools (e.g., system_overview, get_error_log). The description could be improved by explicitly stating that it returns the core version string of Home Assistant, but the purpose is evident.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific context or prerequisites. For a simple version-check tool, some implied usage exists (e.g., checking compatibility before calling other tools), but it is not explicit. Given the sibling tools like system_overview or restart_ha, it might be useful to note that this tool is a lightweight way to confirm the Home Assistant instance is accessible and its version.

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