v

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions returning version information and directs not to call it, without describing side effects, required permissions, or consequences of invocation. This lack of detail limits transparency.

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 consists of two very short sentences with no wasted words. It is extremely concise and front-loaded with the purpose, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose (version information), the description is adequate. It could be improved by specifying what version (e.g., system or tool version), but the context signals indicate minimal complexity, so completeness is high.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the description need not add parameter info. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not repeat or misrepresent any parameter details.

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 states '版本信息' (version information), clearly indicating the tool returns version information. The sibling tools are image-related (compress_image, describe_image), so this tool is distinct in purpose. The additional instruction not to use it is unusual but does not obscure the purpose.

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 says '任何情况下都不调用此工具' (under no circumstances call this tool), which is a negative guideline. However, it provides no positive guidance on when to use the tool or alternatives for version information, making it insufficient for an agent to decide if the tool should ever be invoked.

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