get_airflow_version

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the return fields (version, git_version) and explains its practical uses. It does not mention rate limits or permissions, but for a simple read operation with no side effects, the transparency about output and purpose is adequate.

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 verbose due to a long list of example user queries and repeating similar phrases. While structured with sections, it could be more concise without losing clarity. Every sentence adds some value, but some redundancy exists.

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 parameters and an existing output schema, the description is fully complete: it explains what the tool returns, why it's useful, and when to invoke it. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to correctly select and use this simple retrieval 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description bears no burden to explain parameters. Instead, it adds value by describing the return structure and use cases, exceeding the baseline of 4 for tools without parameters.

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 it retrieves 'version information for the Airflow instance' and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_airflow_config and get_system_health. It provides specific examples of user queries that should trigger this tool, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool (e.g., when user asks about Airflow version) and provides context for its utility (API compatibility, feature availability, troubleshooting). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but given no overlapping sibling tools for version info, this is less critical.

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