get_database_version

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. The description is minimal and does not disclose traits like permissions needed, response format, or side effects. However, as a simple read-only query with no parameters, the behavior is straightforward, earning a middle score.

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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no wasted text, and the structure is optimally front-loaded for quick parsing by an AI agent.

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 (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly mention the return type (e.g., 'returns a version string'), but the output schema likely covers that, making the description adequate.

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 coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and no additional information is needed beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 'Get PostgreSQL server version,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with tables, queries, databases, etc., making it easy to select for version retrieval.

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. Context signals indicate sibling tools like get_connection_status or list_databases, but the description does not explain when version retrieval is appropriate (e.g., for compatibility checks).

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