acerca_de_apolo

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond them by spelling out what information is returned, especially the app-vs-extension origin and the specific engines carried.

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?

It is a single compact sentence that front-loads the version/origin/engines content, followed by a short usage cue. Every phrase earns its place, including the engine list, which tells the agent exactly what diagnostic detail is available.

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, read-only info tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is reported and when to call it. A little more on output shape could help, but the key facts are present.

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. Nothing about parameter semantics is missing or misleading.

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 states a specific purpose: reporting the version, the launch origin (app vs. Claude Desktop extension), and the bundled engines (libwebp, MozJPEG, oxipng, avifenc, cjxl). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling optimization tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

It gives a clear usage trigger: "when someone asks about the version or something doesn't match what was expected." That covers the main diagnostic case, but it doesn't state when not to use it or name an alternative sibling.

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