get_build_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the exact return fields, the running server context, and implies a read-only operation via 'Get.' It stops short of explicitly confirming no side effects or any authentication requirements, but for a zero-parameter read tool the disclosure is strong.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and uses clear headers for usage cases and return values. It is slightly repetitive in first naming the returned fields and then listing them again, but the structure is clean and easy to scan.

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 no annotations, the description fully explains what the tool returns (version, gitCommit, buildTime) and why an agent would call it. For this simple no-parameter read tool, no critical context is missing.

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 the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter details because none exist, and it does not introduce confusion about inputs.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (build information) with scope (backend server). It clearly distinguishes this from all sibling tools, which handle projects, looks, cues, fixtures, and boards, not server build metadata.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: verifying server version after updates, debugging version mismatches, and confirming deployment success. It does not include when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, but none are needed because no sibling covers this purpose.

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