info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. 'Get information' clearly signals a read-only, non-mutating operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or describe any potential environment interaction beyond reading version and library data.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then lists the specific information categories. Every word contributes value, with no filler or repetition.

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 introspection tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what kind of information will be returned—version, features, library versions—and no additional context is necessary to call it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema already fully reflects that with complete coverage. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning or formatting, so the zero-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'Get information about the OpenSCAD installation' and specifies what that includes: 'version, features, library versions'. This naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like render, preview, and validate, which are clearly operation-oriented.

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 tool's purpose strongly implies when to use it—when an agent needs environment or installation details—but it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or alternatives. No alternatives are named, so the usage context is left to inference.

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