get_version

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals what the call reports (kernel version plus which transport channel is in use, named pipe vs HTTP), which implies a safe, side-effect-free query, but it says nothing about permissions, latency, or failure modes when the kernel is unreachable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no repetition of the tool name. It is appropriately sized for a trivial zero-argument query, though the parenthetical enumeration of channels is the only elaboration offered.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the two pieces of information returned. For a no-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool this is nearly sufficient; only the return format (e.g., raw version string vs structured object) remains unspecified.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there is none to add, and the empty schema leaves no ambiguity.

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 gives a specific verb (查看) and two concrete resources: the mihomo kernel version and the active connection channel (named pipe / HTTP). That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings such as get_configs, get_connections, or delay_test, though it never explicitly contrasts 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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for adjacent diagnostic needs. The read-only diagnostic intent is only implied by 查看; the agent must 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.