Get build version

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds the key behavioral fact that the call is unauthenticated and purely a health/diagnostic check. This is appropriate context beyond what annotations provide, with no contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the one meaningful usage detail an agent needs: this is for reachability checks.

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 diagnostic getter with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage context, authentication expectations, and behavioral characteristics. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema coverage is effectively complete. The description does not need to explain parameters; the baseline of 4 applies since there is nothing missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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') and names the exact resource ('deployed Repovive web-app build version'). It also characterizes the call as an unauthenticated health/diagnostic operation, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like repovive_build_run_status.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use it: to check that the platform is reachable. It provides clear context but does not discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, though no real alternative exists among siblings for this health check.

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