Get Server Version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or details the return format. It adds basic context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation support.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the essential information with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what the tool does but does not cover behavioral aspects like response format or error handling, which could be useful despite the low complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, as there are none to document. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant information.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('current HTTP Toolkit server version'), distinguishing it from siblings that handle interception, configuration, or traffic management. It precisely communicates the tool's function 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 implies usage for retrieving version information, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_config' or 'trigger_update'. It lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage inferred rather than directed.

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