Version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the safety-relevant trait: an installed release is read-only and must never be edited, whereas a source checkout is mutable. It does not state that the call is itself side-effect-free or what the result looks like, but the latter is covered by the output schema.

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 core answer (version + checkout vs release) is front-loaded, and the parenthetical gloss on what a source checkout means is genuinely useful for disambiguation. It is slightly wordy — 'a clone of the repository: the code is right there, at main or a branch' is more prose than the point requires.

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?

For a zero-argument diagnostic with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the what, when, and the follow-up document. Nothing essential is missing, though it could note that the call is a cheap, safe read wherever an agent is uncertain whether it is running against a checkout or a release.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly adds no parameter commentary and does not invent arguments an agent might try to pass.

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?

States a specific resource and the exact information returned: the version plus whether it runs from a source checkout or an installed release, with both modes defined (clone of the repository vs PyPI/Claude Code/Codex plugin). That is far more discriminating than the sibling names project_info or config_get, which an agent might otherwise confuse with it.

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?

Gives explicit triggers: before changing or reporting a problem in ismail itself, and when the person asks what version they have. It also routes the agent onward to development.md, 'Starting from an installed ismail', so the next step after calling is defined rather than inferred.

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