get_system_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name implies—no mention of what 'version information' includes, whether it performs a network call, or if it might return multiple version components. This is minimal added value.

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 fluff. It front-loads the verb and resource immediately, and every word is necessary. It is appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter getter.

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 params) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return structure), the description is sufficient for an agent to know what it does. One could argue it could mention whether this returns both pfSense and underlying OS version, but the output schema likely covers that. The description is complete enough for the operational context.

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 trivially 100% covered. With no parameters, the description does not need to add anything. Baseline 4 applies because there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pfSense system version information'), clearly identifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like get_system_hostname or get_system_timezone, though it does not enumerate the exact fields returned.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely restates the function without any context such as 'use this to check the current firmware version' or exclusions. Since there are many sibling getter tools, this lack of differentiation hurts.

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