CLI version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond them by disclosing that no authentication is required and what the response payload looks like.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the resource and return shape, then appends the auth and usage caveats. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 diagnostic with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what it returns, its shape, that it needs no auth, and why an agent would call it instead of another tool.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. It correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics that do not exist.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the installed proton-drive CLI and SDK versions, and even names the return shape {cli, sdk}. It is not explicitly differentiated from the nearest-sounding sibling drive_info, which is the only remaining 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?

Gives clear usage context ('use to confirm the binary or diagnose compatibility') and a prerequisite ('Needs no authentication'). No alternative tool is named or excluded, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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