get-aria-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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like response format, potential errors, or whether it requires authentication. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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: 'Get information about the ARIA specification version and metadata.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no redundant words, and every part earns its place by specifying the resource clearly. This is an excellent example of conciseness.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets the basic requirement for a simple retrieval 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 has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately avoids mentioning any. It adds value by clarifying what information is retrieved ('ARIA specification version and metadata'), which compensates for the lack of parameter details. A baseline of 4 is suitable for a zero-parameter tool.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get information about the ARIA specification version and metadata.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('ARIA specification version and metadata'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-server-info' which might also provide metadata, preventing a perfect score.

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. With sibling tools like 'get-server-info' that might overlap in providing metadata, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage based on the name alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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