get_server_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 disclosure. The description accurately describes the behavior as returning the current recipe server version, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. While it does not elaborate on output format or error handling, the output schema exists, and the simple nature of the tool makes this level of transparency adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence in German that directly states the purpose. There is no superfluous content, and every word contributes to meaning. It is appropriately sized for a trivial no-parameter tool.

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 (no parameters, no side effects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. The agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context. The description fully covers the tool's behavior within the context of its minimal complexity.

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 does not need to explain parameter details. The input schema is empty, and schema coverage is 100% by definition. The baseline score for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusion.

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 function: 'Gibt die aktuelle Version des recipe-servers zurueck' (Returns the current version of the recipe server). The verb 'returns' is specific, the resource 'recipe server version' is clearly identified, and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_working_directory_tool or build_recipe_html_tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used when the server version is needed. No exclusions or alternative-referencing statements are present.

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