tokonomix_skill_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'No network call' (indicating a cheap, local operation) and lists the exact return fields ({version, sha256, last_changed, bytes}), providing useful context. It does not explicitly state there are no side effects, but the nature of a fingerprint check implies a safe read-only operation. The absence of any warning about permissions or failure modes is acceptable for this simple 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes just enough detail (return fields and usage trigger) without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what it returns (the hash and metadata), why it exists (detect stale cache), and how to act on the result (call tokonomix_get_skill). The tie-in to sibling tools ensures the agent understands where this fits in the broader workflow.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. Baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate since the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented 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 tool returns a 'cheap version fingerprint' of the canonical SKILL.md, specifying the verb ('Return'), the resource ('version fingerprint of the canonical Tokonomix SKILL.md'), and its role in detecting stale caches. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly framing itself as the lightweight version check, with tokonomix_get_skill as the refresh mechanism.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to detect that your local cached SKILL.md is stale' and includes a conditional action: 'if your cached version differs from the returned one, call tokonomix_get_skill to refresh.' This names the alternative tool and gives a clear decision procedure.

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