get_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately indicates a read-only informational operation and specifies the output's key content (WASM vs native). It does not elaborate on side effects, but the operation is inherently non-mutating and the description covers the main behavioral trait.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no filler. The operation and its core output are stated compactly and front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 is minimal: no parameters, no output schema, and no complex behavior. The description fully covers what an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly and interpret the result, identifying the engine type as WASM or native. There are no missing details that would affect correct usage.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters, and since there are no inputs, no parameter-specific guidance is needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and names an explicit resource: 'OpenSCAD engine info' with the two possible values '(WASM or native)'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like render, export, or validate, which perform model operations rather than returning engine information.

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 when to use the tool—whenever engine type information is needed—but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. For a simple info-gathering tool this context is largely self-evident, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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