syncthing_system_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no return shape, no instance-targeting behavior, no note that it reads a remote Syncthing daemon.

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?

Three words is brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded purpose statement or any content that earns its place because there is essentially no content at all.

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 tool with two optional, completely undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what the tool returns or how the fields/instance parameters change behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the two parameters (fields, instance). Nothing explains that fields selects which version properties to return or that instance targets a specific Syncthing instance, so both parameters remain undocumented.

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?

"System version." is effectively a tautological restatement of the tool name syncthing_system_version; it names the resource but supplies no verb or action and does not distinguish it from siblings like syncthing_system_status, syncthing_system_health, or syncthing_upgrade_available.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the many other syncthing_system_* tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of the optional instance/fields parameters. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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