Get PBS Version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds what data is returned (version, release, repository ID), which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or error handling. Since annotations carry the main safety burden, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the return value and followed by a usage tip. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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, diagnostic tool, the description is fully complete. It states what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. No output schema exists, but the description covers the essential return fields. The sibling tools are distinct, and this simple tool needs no further elaboration.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description focuses on output, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 returns the Proxmox Backup Server version, release, and repository ID, using the specific verb 'Returns'. This uniquely identifies its purpose among the sibling tools, which focus on nodes, sync jobs, tasks, and datastores.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to confirm connectivity and check which PBS version is running', giving clear context for when to use the tool. It does not name alternative tools for exclusion, but the sibling list and specific language make the appropriate usage obvious.

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