info

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it returns seven specific keys with details, mentions that toolsets is empty until the engine lands, and notes data is read from shipped file headers to avoid drift. This is comprehensive for a read-only health-check tool.

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 concise yet informative, front-loading the purpose and then listing return keys with context. Every sentence adds value, and the example clarifies the structure. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns, including an example. It is complete for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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, so the description adds no parameter info. However, baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description explains the return structure in detail, which aids understanding without needing parameter guidance.

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 is a 'Discovery / health-check entrypoint' that reports availability and version info, distinguishing it from sibling tools which deal with unit conversions and definitions.

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 purpose implies usage as a health-check, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Since siblings are distinct, the need for explicit guidance is lower, but still absent.

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