apiinfo_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. It only says '获取版本信息' without indicating that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, whether authentication is required, or any other behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects or return format (though output schema exists). For a simple version retrieval, the transparency is minimal and does not add meaningful context beyond the literal action.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no superfluous words. This is ideal for a simple 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 low complexity (no parameters, clear purpose) and the presence of an output schema that presumably defines the return structure, the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema covers that. However, it lacks any mention of when this might be useful, but for a version info tool, that is not critical. Overall, it is complete for its scope.

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 100% (vacuously). The description correctly adds no parameter information because there are none. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool, and the description does not introduce any confusion 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 states the verb '获取' (get) and the specific resource 'Zabbix API版本信息' (Zabbix API version information). It clearly identifies what the tool does and naturally distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which all deal with hosts, events, or reports rather than API version details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. While the purpose is obvious for a version check, the description does not explicitly state that it should be used to verify API version compatibility or any context in which it is preferred over other tools. This leaves the agent without explicit usage direction.

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