get_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'gets' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, idempotent, or requires no special permissions. The behavior is simple enough that the description is adequate, but it lacks explicit safety disclosure.

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 redundancy. The information is front-loaded, and every word contributes to meaning. The optional '[Tool Role]' prefix does not detract from clarity.

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 simplicity of the tool (no params, output schema exists), the description is sufficient to understand what it does. The output schema covers return value details, and no critical context is missing. The only minor gap is the lack of guidance on when to call it, which is more of a usage guideline issue.

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 is empty. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds nothing needed since there are no parameters to explain. The description correctly communicates the lack of required inputs implicitly.

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 ('Gets') and the resource ('Airflow version information'), making it specific and distinguishable from sibling getter tools. It directly answers what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 or exclusions. While the tool is simple, the complete absence of usage context reduces its value for an AI agent deciding between many sibling tools.

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