get_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the returned data and does not state whether the call is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The 'get' prefix hints at safety, but the description itself offers no explicit behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at four words, efficiently conveying the core output without wasted text. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but for a zero-parameter getter this is acceptable and appropriately sized.

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?

The description covers the essential return content, and an output schema exists so return-value details are available elsewhere. However, it omits authentication/session expectations and does not differentiate itself from other info endpoints, so an agent must infer whether this tool is callable without a session or how it compares to health_check.

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 information for the description to complement. The schema already fully covers everything (vacuously 100%), and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 returns the server version and Go runtime, which is a specific output resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_platform and get_capabilities. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb-led explanation, so it relies on the tool name 'get' to imply the retrieval action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention equivalent info tools like get_platform, get_capabilities, or health_check, nor does it give any context for which tool should be selected in a given situation.

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