pdm_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states 'READ-ONLY' and 'No state change', describes the return value, and mentions configuration requirement 'Needs PROXIMO_PDM_* config'. This is sufficient for a simple version check.

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?

Very concise: two sentences that front-load the key information ('READ-ONLY') and efficiently cover purpose, output, alternative, and config. No wasted words.

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 simple read-only tool with an output schema and zero required parameters, the description covers all necessary aspects: behavior, output, alternative, and prerequisites. It is complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a well-described parameter. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, though it mentions the config requirement in the general context.

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 'READ-ONLY: get the PDM appliance's own version info' and specifies the return dict with release, repoid, and version. It also distinguishes from pdm_ping for lightweight health checks.

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?

Explicitly names pdm_ping as an alternative for lightweight health checks and notes 'No state change'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool beyond that.

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