get_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes a connection-specific list of requests, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, though the name and content strongly suggest a pure retrieval.

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 a single concise sentence front-loaded with the core subject. It avoids any repetition of the tool name and every word adds value by specifying the exact contents of the response.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, simple read operation), the description fully explains what the agent will receive: version info, platform, and available requests. It is complete for both selection and invocation purposes.

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, and the input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description is not required to explain parameter behavior because no parameters exist, and it correctly avoids adding irrelevant details.

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 clearly identifies what the tool returns: OBS/obs-websocket version info, platform, and available requests. It is specific and unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only version-related introspection tool.

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 implies usage by naming the exact data returned, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool or mention alternatives. It provides no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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