uisp_get_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that this is a read-style operation ('Get') and specifies the returned categories (version, deployment type, build info), plus the diagnostic use case. It stops short of stating error behavior or explicitly confirming no side effects, but these are low risk for a version query.

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, front-loaded sentence. Every clause adds information: what is returned and why you would call it. There is no padding or repetition.

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 endpoint with no output schema, the description adequately covers return values and purpose. It could mention exact field names or potential failure modes, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can select and invoke it confidently.

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 the schema fully covers parameter semantics by default. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately adds no redundant parameter detail.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the UISP version') and adds the exact data returned: deployment type and build info. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which target version information.

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 phrase 'Useful as a credential/connectivity sanity check' gives a clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a version endpoint no competing sibling is apparent.

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