ampl_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses that no session is required, explains the behavior of ampl_version being None without a live session, and notes that the result shape remains consistent. This goes beyond simple 'report' semantics and covers edge cases.

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 is front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and a nuance paragraph. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is logical and easy to scan.

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 zero-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: session independence, payload detail, and a practical failure scenario. It is complete and leaves no obvious gaps.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds context about the session-dependent behavior which is more relevant than any param documentation.

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 begins with the specific verb 'Report' and lists the exact resources (server build, AMPL versions, licence tier, installed solvers), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling session-management or evaluation 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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first when anything is unexplained' and gives a concrete scenario (demo licence behavior). It also names the alternative action ('Call ampl_init_session first if you need it') for a specific case, showing strong usage direction.

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