get_compiler_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value (version string) and that it can verify compiler availability, but it does not detail error behavior (e.g., what happens if the compiler is unavailable) or explicitly state the absence of side effects. This is adequate for a zero-parameter read-only getter, but not rich.

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 at two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence earns its place. It avoids redundancy and clearly conveys the tool's purpose and usage.

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 simple version-check tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what it returns, when to use it, and its relation to compilation. It provides all necessary context without over-explaining.

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 schema is empty, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter meanings. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adequately explains the tool's purpose without needing parameter details.

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: 'Returns the version string of the Tolk compiler (WASM build from @ton/tolk-js).' This is a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from the sibling tools (compile_tolk, check_tolk_syntax) by focusing solely on version retrieval.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to verify the compiler is available and check its version before compiling.' This tells the agent when to invoke it (before compiling), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios. Still, the guidance is clear enough for a simple version-check tool.

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