bob_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Return' explicitly indicates a read-only operation, and 'health check' implies non-destructive intent. Although it doesn't detail edge cases (e.g., if the shell isn't installed), for a simple version query this level of transparency is sufficient.

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, clear sentence that includes the key action and purpose ('health check') without any filler. It is optimally concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It states what the tool returns and its intended use, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke 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 input schema is empty (zero parameters), so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description adds no unnecessary detail about parameters, which 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a clear resource ('installed IBM Bob Shell version'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools (bob_prompt, bob_list_sessions, bob_resume_session) which focus on prompts and sessions, not version info.

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 phrase 'health check' immediately signals when to use this tool—i.e., for verifying the installation/status of IBM Bob Shell. It provides clear context for use, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Since no alternatives are relevant for a version check, this is adequate.

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