system_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The passive phrasing implies a read-only query and names the two data points returned, so it is not misleading. However, it never explicitly states that no state is modified, how the version is resolved, or whether any authentication is implied — minimal but adequate for a zero-parameter getter.

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?

A single fragment with no filler — every word contributes information and the two data points are front-loaded. It is slightly terse without a verb, but appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Completeness is proportionate to the tool's shape: zero parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that presumably documents the returned fields. The description conveys what the tool returns; the main missing element is sibling differentiation, which is already penalized under usage_guidelines.

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 coverage is trivially 100% via an empty schema, so the baseline 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to add, and it correctly says nothing about parameters.

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 names the resource clearly — DirectAdmin version and update channel — so an agent can tell what data the tool exposes. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'Get' or 'Returns'), and it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like system_info or system_set_update_channel.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains system_set_update_channel, system_update_directadmin, and system_info, but the description never hints that this is the read-only counterpart to system_set_update_channel or that system_info offers broader server data.

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