version

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which cover most behavioral aspects. The description adds the specific information returned ('version and system information'), but does not elaborate on response format or potential side effects, which is acceptable given the annotations and zero parameters.

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 extremely concise (7 words) and front-loaded with the key verb and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero parameters, comprehensive annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It succinctly states the tool's purpose without needing additional context.

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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly omits parameter details since none exist, adhering to the baseline expectation for parameter-richness compensation.

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 uses a clear verb 'display' and specifies the resource 'version and system information', making the purpose straightforward. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'health' or 'ping' that might also return system information, which slightly reduces clarity for nuanced selection.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'health' or 'ping'. An agent would need to infer usage from the name and context, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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