get_log_insight_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so '[READ]'/'Read-only' adds little beyond structured data. However, the description does add genuine value: with no output schema present, it discloses the return shape {version, release_name, build} and the diagnostic intent, which goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then usage — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. The trailing 'Read-only.' and the '[READ]' prefix duplicate the annotations and each other, a small redundancy against an otherwise tight description.

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-required-parameter, single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and when to reach for it. It is essentially complete; only minor details (e.g., whether the call requires working credentials in all cases) are left to the schema.

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 100% and the single 'target' parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema itself (config file location, default_target fallback, error behavior, credential check). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the Log Insight appliance version/build') plus the diagnostic purpose, and explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming search_logs as the query tool this one supports. The agent can tell immediately this is a version/metadata lookup, not a log search.

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 a concrete trigger condition ('Use this first when a query behaves unexpectedly... to confirm the appliance version before trusting search_logs') and names the sibling it complements. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., avoiding it for routine log retrieval), so it is clear context but not a full routing rule.

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