core_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action is a 'report' (implying read-only) and explicitly lists the three categories of returned data (version, build metadata, Go runtime details). This gives the agent a clear picture of behavior without hiding anything.

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 entire description is one concise sentence that front-loads the primary verb and resource ('Report rclone version'), then immediately lists the expected output. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a trivial tool with no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does so by enumerating version, build metadata, and Go runtime details. The generic parameters are fully documented in the schema, and no other context is required. The description is complete for its complexity level.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (_async and _group), including their meaning and purpose. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but since these are generic infrastructure parameters, the schema already suffices. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs and a resource: 'Report rclone version' and clearly states the exact output: 'running rclone version, build metadata, and Go runtime details.' This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like core_stats or operations_mkdir, which serve entirely different purposes.

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 description makes the use case obvious—call this tool when you need the rclone version or build/runtime information. There are no competing sibling tools for this functionality, so no exclusions or alternative tool references are needed. The context is clear and sufficient.

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