coeus_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states that invoking the tool does not trigger a provider, which is a useful non-obvious behavioral trait. For a read-only version check, this is sufficient; it doesn't need to describe return format since it's a version string.

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?

A single, concise sentence that states the action and key qualifier. No fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent exactly what it does and the key constraint. Nothing missing.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description doesn't waste space on params. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description correctly conveys that no input is needed.

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 'Return' and the resource 'installed Coeus package version', and the qualifier 'without invoking a provider' distinguishes it from sibling tools that might require provider interaction. No ambiguity.

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 phrase 'without invoking a provider' implies its use case (when you want a quick version check without side effects or provider calls). It doesn't explicitly contrast with specific siblings like coeus_stats or coeus_healthcheck, but the context is clear enough for a simple utility.

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