get_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the exact content returned ('build details and library versions'), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 sentence that is immediately informative and front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple no-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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only, idempotent) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully adequate. It explains the purpose and scope of the returned information without needing to document parameters or side effects. The annotations and output schema cover the remaining context.

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 schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description properly focuses on what the tool does rather than needing to explain parameter inputs.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'KiCad version information'. It further specifies the scope with 'build details and library versions', distinguishing it from all sibling tools which perform other actions. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 context: to retrieve version information from KiCad. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the absence of parameters and the read-only nature make it self-evident that this is a safe, general-purpose query tool. Clear context, though no explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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