get_api_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool 'queries /api/version' and returns 'the full version response including api_semver and any other metadata,' which clearly indicates a read-only network operation. It does not detail error conditions or prerequisites, but for a zero-parameter version check, the behavioral disclosure is adequate and non-contradictory.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a brief paragraph for the operation, a bullet for the return type, and a short 'Use case' section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise yet informative.

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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the underlying endpoint, the return object (VersionInfo with api_semver), and the recommended usage context. The sibling list confirms this is a standalone version inquiry, and the description fully equips an agent to invoke it 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 input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve the API version information supported by the Busy Bar device.' It further clarifies the scope by mentioning the underlying endpoint (/api/version) and the goal of determining available API operations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_firmware_info or get_device_info.

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 includes a dedicated 'Use case' section: 'Call this first when building integrations to verify API compatibility with the connected Busy Bar unit before issuing further commands.' This provides explicit when-to-use guidance, though it does not mention exclusions or alternatives, which keeps it one point below the maximum.

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