litellm_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details that the output includes `mcp` (via importlib metadata) and `service` (via GET /health/readiness), and notes specific behavior for LiteLLM v1.93.0 where the payload is {status, db} without a version field. This is comprehensive and accurate.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides necessary technical details without extraneous words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description covers the expected output fields, their derivation, and version-specific notes. Given the presence of an output schema (which may provide additional structure), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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, and the description adds meaning by explaining the output structure and data sources. According to guidelines, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4, and the description meets this baseline without needing further param info.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the MCP server version and the LiteLLM service readiness.' It uses specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('version', 'service readiness'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools focused on read, admin, delete, and execute operations.

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 implicitly suggests usage for checking server version and health, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. No explicit usage guidance is given.

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