node_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 does disclose the return format by listing the keys (status, exit_code, stdout, stderr, output, duration_ms), which is helpful. However, it does not mention error behavior when Node.js is not installed, possible exit code meanings, or any side effects (though likely none). It provides some transparency but not comprehensive behavior details.

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 appropriately brief: two sentences plus a minimal example. Every sentence adds value — the first states the purpose, the second specifies the return keys, and the example demonstrates invocation. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter utility, the description is nearly complete. It includes the purpose and the full expected return structure. It lacks only a note about error conditions (e.g., Node not installed), but for a tool of this simplicity, the provided information is sufficient to use it correctly. The output schema presumably reinforces the return structure.

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 input schema is empty and the description needs no parameter explanation. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, this is a 4. The description correctly includes an example call node_version() to confirm no arguments 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Return the installed Node.js version.' It uses a specific verb ('return') and a specific resource ('installed Node.js version'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like python_version or npm_version. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or which alternatives might be more appropriate. While the tool's purpose is self-evident, it does not state any context, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to sibling tools. For example, it doesn't mention that this is a simple version check or that npm_version might be relevant for Node package versions.

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