lilypond_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description indicates a read-only reporting operation ('Report'), which implies no side effects, but it does not explicitly state that it is safe, non-mutating, or that no state changes occur. For a simple version query, this is adequate but minimal.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a helpful usage hint. There is zero wasted wording; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool returns (the version) and why it matters (for version headers). No additional detail is missing that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. Schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-related information, but none is needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not fail to meet that.

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 verb ('Report') and resource ('the LilyPond version this server engraves with'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools that engrave files or code. An agent can immediately understand this is a version-query tool, not an engraving operation.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use it: 'Use it to pick the right \version header for new .ly files.' This gives a concrete use case. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternatives (engrave_file, engrave_code), so it doesn't fully route the agent away from siblings, but the purpose is clear enough.

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