version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get') without implying mutation, and specifies the scope ('Meilisearch server'), but does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It adequately describes the core behavior for a simple query tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get the version information') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and earns its place by clearly stating the purpose.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete enough for basic understanding but lacks details on output format or behavioral nuances. It adequately covers the purpose but could benefit from more context about what the version information includes or how it differs from other status tools.

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 schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here, but does not compensate for any gaps since none exist. A baseline of 4 is applied as per rules for 0 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('version information of the Meilisearch server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'health' or 'info' that provide different server status information. It precisely communicates what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 implies usage for retrieving version details, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'health' or 'info' (which might include version info). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving usage context partially inferred rather than clearly defined.

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