ultrade_system_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get system version', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 'Get system version' is extremely concise—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimal but insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'system version' entails (e.g., format, scope) or the expected output, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool effectively in a broader system with many sibling tools.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter information, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional semantic details are required or provided.

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 'Get system version' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('system version'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'system version' refers to (e.g., API version, software version, platform version) and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'ultrade_system_maintenance' or 'ultrade_system_time', which are also system-related but serve different purposes.

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. It doesn't mention use cases (e.g., for debugging, compatibility checks), prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools like 'ultrade_system_maintenance' or 'ultrade_system_time', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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