gds_toolchain_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool 'Returns' information, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not mention side effects, auth, or rate limits, but for a simple info-returning tool, this is sufficient disclosure.

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 with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action 'Returns' and clearly lists the objects returned. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 annotations, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It specifies the runtime and versions of the three tools, which is sufficient context for a user to decide to invoke it.

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 is empty (0 parameters), so there is nothing for the description to explain. According to the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no unnecessary parameter details beyond the schema.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Returns active container/host runtime and versions of KLayout, Magic, and Netgen.' It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the exact resource (runtime and versions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gds_info or drc_klayout, which have different functions.

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 (when you need toolchain versions), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough that a user can infer it. Meets the 'implied usage' level but not explicit guidance.

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