check_node_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Check Node.js version' without revealing what the tool actually does (e.g., executes a command, returns a string, or may fail if Node.js is missing). This is minimal and leaves significant ambiguity about behavior.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately states the purpose, earning the maximum score for conciseness.

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 simple zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention what the returned information looks like (e.g., version string) or any potential failure modes, which would be useful context. However, its simplicity means it is not severely incomplete, warranting a middle score.

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, so the schema provides no parameter details. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to explain parameters, but could still mention any implicit inputs (e.g., environment variables).

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 ('Check') and resource ('Node.js version'), clearly distinguishing it from the database-focused sibling tools. However, it could be more precise by stating whether it returns the version or validates it, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context for expected usage. While siblings are all database-related, the description itself does not mention any use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent without explicit direction.

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