Cluster version and identity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the returned fields and the role of the version, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response structure, authentication needs, or whether values are cached.

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 short sentences: the first front-loads the exact fields returned, and the second gives a brief reason the version matters. There is no filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 parameterless, read-only metadata tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent gets (name, version, flavour) and why version is useful. It could be slightly richer by noting the response is a flat JSON object, but that is a minor omission for such a simple tool.

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 no parameter burden on the description. The schema is effectively empty and the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 identifies the resource (cluster identity: name, version, build flavour), but it uses a noun phrase rather than a specific verb like 'returns' or 'lists'. It is distinguishable from siblings by its focus on cluster metadata, yet it never explicitly differentiates itself from elasticsearch_health or other info tools.

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 statement 'The version decides which query DSL features exist' implies when this tool is relevant: checking version-dependent DSL feature support. However, it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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