pdm_remote_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It includes 'DIAGNOSE (LOW)' suggesting a safe, read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it does not modify state. It also fails to disclose potential error behavior or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, more explicit behavioral context is needed.

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 very concise (two sentences), with the purpose front-loaded. Every word adds value. While short, it does not waste space. A slightly more explicit indication of read-only behavior could be added without harming 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 simplicity (get version info), the description covers the core purpose and key parameter. The output schema exists, so return format is handled. However, it lacks mention of connectivity requirements or result behavior when the remote is unreachable. The prerequisite is noted, but overall completeness is modest.

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 schema has 50% description coverage (only 'proximo_target' is documented). The description adds essential context for the undocumented 'remote_id' parameter by explaining it should come from 'pdm_remotes_list'. This compensates for the schema gap, though it omits 'proximo_target' entirely, which is already well-described in the schema.

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 retrieves version info for a specific PDM remote ('get version info for one PDM-registered remote'). The 'DIAGNOSE (LOW)' prefix signals its diagnostic, low-risk nature, distinguishing it from operational tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling diagnostics like pdm_remote_config_get or pdm_remotes_list.

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 indicates when to use (when needing version info for a remote) and mentions a prerequisite ('Needs PROXIMO_PDM_* config'). It does not specify when not to use, nor does it reference alternative tools for related tasks like fetching remote configuration or listing remotes.

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