Get Version Info

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

No annotations are supplied, but this is a zero-parameter, self-evidently side-effect-free read, so the burden is light. The description usefully clarifies what each returned value means (spec_version is the owner's edition), adding context beyond the field names, but says nothing about caching, freshness, or auth, and the output schema already enumerates the fields.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first and returns second, with no filler. Every clause carries information the agent can use.

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-arg version tool with an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. The only omission is a note on when in a workflow to call it, which is minor here.

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 takes no parameters, so by convention the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to compensate for.

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 verb and resource: retrieves the service's own version plus the edition of DARC's list it serves. That is clearly distinct in function from the lookup/search siblings, though the description never explicitly names them as alternatives. A reader knows exactly what this tool returns.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. Version/edition checks are conventionally diagnostic, but the description does not say so, nor does it contrast with darc_dok_source_info, which sounds like it could cover related metadata. The agent must infer the trigger condition.

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