get_version_info

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation (reading a file and returning metadata), but it does not explicitly mention side effects, permissions, or potential pitfalls (e.g., what happens if the file is missing). It is transparent about its primary behavior but lacks depth on edge cases.

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 conveys the essential purpose and output without unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

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?

The description provides a good overview of the output (metadata list) and the input file (version.json), but it lacks details on error handling, return structure, or any prerequisites. For a read-only tool, this might be adequate, but the absence of output schema or example usage leaves the context incomplete.

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 schema defines two parameters (mc_dir and instance_id) with only type information. The description does not explain what these parameters represent or how they should be used. There is no mention of their purpose, format, or expected values, leaving the user to infer their meaning from the names alone.

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's function: reading version.json of a specified Minecraft version and returning specific metadata such as game version, Loader version, Java requirements, JVM parameters, and mod count. This is distinct from the sibling tools, which focus on other aspects like mod listing, conflict detection, and log reading.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It is implied that it is for retrieving version information, but no direct comparison or contextual cues are given, such as 'use this when you need version metadata' or 'for mod-related issues, use list_mods instead.'

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