get_version

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

With no annotations, the description adequately indicates a read-only operation returning multiple pieces of information. It does not disclose potential network dependencies or caching behavior, but is sufficient for a simple info retrieval.

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 concise sentence that lists the returned items without redundancy. Every word is essential.

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 no output schema and zero parameters, the description covers the main aspects of what the tool returns. It could be improved by hinting at the output format (e.g., JSON), but is otherwise complete.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline score of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 the FastBCP binary version, capabilities, and supported source types, output formats, and storage targets. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like list_supported_formats, which likely focuses only on formats.

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 implies use for checking capabilities and version, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. siblings like list_supported_formats or validate_connection. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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