get_whats_new

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description only states what the tool returns but does not disclose whether it is a read-only operation, if it has side effects, or any caching or rate-limit behavior. For a simple informational tool this is a minor gap, but the description does not go beyond the literal function.

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?

A single, concise sentence that conveys the full purpose without any fluff. Front-loaded with the primary action and secondary content. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns. It does not need to explain return format since the output schema exists. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly, though it could optionally mention that it is safe to call anytime.

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 schema coverage is effectively 100%. With no parameters to describe, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none.

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 brief notes for the server version and a summary of FFmpeg build flags. This is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like get_version, which likely returns only version numbers. The purpose is 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It is implied that it is used when version notes or build flag summaries are needed, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. Given the tool's simplicity, some guidance would be helpful but its absence is not fatal.

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