epf_version

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 discloses a key behavioral trait: 'No auth required', which is useful for an agent to know before invoking. It also implicitly indicates a read-only operation (getting version info), and the description is transparent about the expected output (version and build date).

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the essential detail about authentication. It contains zero wasted words and is immediately understandable.

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, simple query tool with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It states what the tool returns (version and build date) and the auth requirement, leaving no gaps for an agent 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, so the schema is empty. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed; the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and there is no coverage gap to compensate for.

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 action 'Get' and the resource 'EPF server version and build date', making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on authentication, listing, downloading, or status updates, so there is no confusion.

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 clear context by indicating what the tool does, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or exclude other tools. However, given the tool's name and obvious purpose (version check), the usage is self-evident, and no explicit alternatives are needed.

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