Check Runtime Versions

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

Beyond annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it checks both installed runtime versions and project version files, and detects EOL/outdated versions. This helps the agent anticipate the tool's operational scope without contradicting the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: a clear purpose statement, a scope sentence, and a concise examples block. Every sentence earns its place without fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read-only check tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors, target languages, project files, and example intents. It could be slightly more explicit about response/result format, but the examples and scope make it sufficiently complete.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds only indirect context through examples, not additional syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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: 'Check installed runtime versions' with an explicit list of languages (Node.js, Python, Rust, etc.). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on runtime version detection and project version files, with concrete example queries.

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?

Provides user-facing example phrasings ('Is my Node.js up to date?') that clearly imply when to invoke this tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the examples sufficiently convey the intended usage context.

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