get_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the useful fact that both installed and latest available versions are returned, hinting that an upstream/network check occurs, but it does not state that the tool is read-only with no side effects or that the latest-version lookup may fail or be slow without connectivity.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource, its scope, and the exact components covered. No filler and nothing for the agent to skip past.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return fields, and it correctly limits itself to saying what categories of version data come back. The only omission is any hint about the network dependency behind 'latest available', which is minor for a zero-argument read 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing in the text misleads 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 and resource ('versions of Pi-hole core, web, FTL, and Docker tag') and enumerates exactly which components are covered. It is nearly self-differentiating among siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from neighbors like get_ftl_info or get_system_info that could also surface version data.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for checking whether components are up to date. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, nor any note about prerequisites such as connectivity for the 'latest available' lookup.

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