freecad_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose useful behavior beyond a plain version string: it reports which resolution rule matched (env, PATH, known path, flatpak, snap). The read-only, non-destructive nature is self-evident from the diagnostic framing, but it is never stated explicitly.

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?

Two short lines: the first states what is reported, the second front-loads the diagnostic use case and the resolution rules. No filler, and the most actionable instruction is placed immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not describe return values, and with zero parameters there is no argument documentation burden. Purpose, usage trigger, and the shape of the diagnostic result are all covered for a simple zero-arg probe.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no argument semantics for the description to clarify. Schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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?

Names a specific subject (FreeCAD version), an additional resource (embedded Python version), and the resolved command the server is using. It is unmistakably a diagnostic/inspection tool and none of the siblings (doc_inspect, doc_export, doc_export_2d, part_run_script) overlap with it.

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?

Gives an explicit usage trigger: 'First thing to call when something doesn't work'. That is a clear when-to-use directive, though it does not enumerate when-not-to-use or name any alternative (there is no comparable sibling anyway).

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