log_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the purpose: diagnostics and query-syntax compatibility, plus the sequencing guidance regarding log_search. This goes beyond structured fields without contradicting them.

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?

Four short sentences, each delivering distinct value: the operation, the parameter, the usage scenario, and the safety confirmation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff or repetition beyond the harmless 'Read-only' tag.

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 (one optional param, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description fully covers the necessary information: what it returns, the parameter origin, and when to invoke it. The lack of return-format details is acceptable since no output schema exists but the output is self-evident (version/build string).

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 provides no description for the 'target' parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining 'target = target name from config', clarifying that it comes from configuration. This is minimal but sufficient for a single optional parameter, though it lacks examples or format details.

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?

Description opens with '[READ] Return the Log Insight appliance version/build', clearly stating the action (return) and resource (appliance version/build). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting its diagnostic role and query-syntax compatibility, which is unique among log_* tools.

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?

Explicit instructions: 'Use this first when a query behaves unexpectedly, to confirm the appliance version before trusting log_search.' This provides a concrete trigger condition and names the sibling tool to validate against, giving clear when-to-use and relational guidance.

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