Get Termix version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and variability aspects. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: that the tool does not perform network calls to GitHub. This goes beyond what the annotations provide and helps the agent understand the tool's non-networked nature, which is valuable for setting expectations about latency and freshness.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds the key differentiator (no GitHub contact). There is no unnecessary jargon, repetition, or extra text. Every word earns its place.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns (local version) and what it does not do (contact GitHub). An agent has all the information needed to decide when to use it and what to expect. The absence of an output schema is fine because the description conveys the nature of the result.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters. The description does not need to add parameter information, and none is present.

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: 'Returns the Termix instance's local version.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like termix_system_releases by noting it does not contact GitHub for update checks. This makes the tool's role unambiguous even among many siblings.

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 clear context by stating the tool returns the local version and explicitly notes it does not check for updates. While it doesn't name alternative tools directly, the statement 'Does not contact GitHub for update checks' implicitly tells an agent when not to use this tool (when update information is needed). This is nearly explicit guidance, though it could have named termix_system_releases as the alternative.

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