tdarr_nodes_version_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'verify the server version' without detailing what happens on success/failure, whether it is a read-only check, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and direct. It avoids unnecessary words but is perhaps too minimal, missing key behavioral details. Still, it earns a 4 for efficiency and clarity.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is very brief, omitting information about the return value, error conditions, or how the version is verified. Given the complexity, the description is under-specified and leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 all 6 parameters are defined with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—e.g., it does not highlight that nodeVersion is the key input or explain how other parameters (nodeID, nodeName, etc.) are used. Baseline is 3 due to full schema coverage, but the description could have provided more 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 the tool's function: 'Verify the server version before establishing a full node connection'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and provides context as a prerequisite step. However, it does not distinguish itself from other node-related sibling tools like tdarr_get_nodes or tdarr_disconnect_node, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 implies usage context ('before establishing a full node connection'), offering some guidance on when to use it. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools (e.g., tdarr_get_nodes for general node info). This leaves potential ambiguity for the agent.

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