get_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only operation that returns version details, which is adequate for a simple metadata endpoint. However, it doesn't mention potential behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this endpoint is always available. The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

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 reasonably concise with three sentences that each add value: states the purpose, details what's returned, and summarizes the return. There's minimal redundancy, though the third sentence ('Returns: Version information...') slightly repeats the first. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 this is a simple, parameterless read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and what information it returns, which covers the basics. However, for a tool without structured output documentation, it could better describe the return format (e.g., JSON structure) or provide example output. The description meets minimum requirements but leaves gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It focuses instead on what the tool returns, which is correct for a parameterless endpoint. The baseline for zero parameters with full schema coverage would be 4, and the description meets this expectation.

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 purpose: 'returns version information of the API server' with specific details about what's included (Git commit, version, build date, compiler information). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on server metadata rather than application operations, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'returns' is appropriate for this read-only operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's obvious this is for checking server version information, there's no mention of when this would be needed (e.g., troubleshooting, compatibility checks) or how it differs from other metadata tools like get_settings or get_plugins. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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