get_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: running-vs-latest semantics, that 'latest' can be null when unresolvable, and that stale descriptions indicate a cache. This is useful behavioral disclosure that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 text is compact and each clause carries a distinct fact (version, cache detection, since usage, unknown-parameter tolerance, reconnect rule, null case). It is somewhat tangled and reads as concatenated notes rather than front-loaded prose, but there is little wasted wording.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the operational semantics an agent needs: version comparison, cache staleness, the null case for 'latest', and the reconnect/unknown-param behaviors. It is reasonably complete for a low-complexity version 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the 'since' and 'description' parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description echoes the 'since' usage ('可把 0.13.0 传入 since') without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 never states a clean verb+resource like 'returns the server version'; instead it opens with '本说明对应版本 0.13.0' and discusses caching semantics. The trailing '(server version)' tag is the only direct signal of what the tool returns. Purpose is implied rather than stated, and it does not distinguish itself from the 15 sibling tools beyond the name.

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?

It offers implicit guidance — pass 0.13.0 into 'since' to see usage changes, and reconnect if a tool is missing from the list — which explains how the version signal should be acted on. However it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, and the advice is tangled up with caching mechanics rather than framed as usage scenarios.

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