Get cmon version

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about what is being queried (the controlling cmon process), but it does not disclose the response shape or any additional behavioral details. This is acceptable 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?

One efficient sentence states the resource, the action, and the deployment scope without any filler. It earns its place and does not repeat the title verbatim, though it stays close to it.

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-parameter, read-only version lookup, the description is complete: it states exactly what the agent will retrieve. The lack of an output schema is mitigated because the description names the return value (the cmon version).

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 input schema is empty and has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to elaborate on. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is a strong score because no parameter ambiguity exists.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and names a precise resource ('version of the ClusterControl controller (cmon)') plus the deployment scope ('backing this CCX deployment'). This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from the sibling admin tools, none of which are version-related.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need the cmon version backing the current CCX deployment. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's purpose is unique enough among the siblings that no alternative routing is necessary.

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