core_version

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool reports version, build metadata, and Go runtime details, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as idempotency, safety guarantees, or response format. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveying purpose. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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?

Given the tool is simple (version report, no output schema, only common parameters), the description covers the essential return values. It could mention that the output is typically a JSON object, but completeness is high for the tool's complexity.

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 description adds no semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the two parameters (_async, _group). The schema descriptions are already clear. Baseline 3 applies as description does not compensate further.

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 verb 'Report' and the resource 'rclone version', specifying that it returns version, build metadata, and Go runtime details. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are all about config, operations, sync, etc., none of which report version.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply describes what it does. No explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' is provided.

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