app_get_version

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full burden and does add real behavioral context: it discloses the internal dependency on Client.GetProductVersion and, importantly, the degraded-mode behavior where 'version' is omitted and a 'note' field appears instead. That failure-mode disclosure is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait the description should surface; only permission/auth and cost details are absent.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a short fallback caveat and a Returns block. Slightly redundant to restate return keys when an output schema exists, but the text is short and each sentence carries information.

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 no-arg read tool with an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what it returns and the important case where the version key is missing. The returns enumeration duplicates the output schema somewhat, but the fallback caveat is genuinely additive.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the version of Altium Designer.' That is unambiguous and distinguishable from most siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with the nearby app_get_status, which could plausibly also report version information.

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?

Usage is implied (you'd call it when you need the host application version, e.g. for diagnostics or compatibility checks), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of app_get_status as an alternative.

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