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

The description aligns with the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) by using 'Show', which implies no side effects. It adds context by specifying what is shown (platform and adapter versions), beyond what annotations provide, though it does not mention any additional behavioral details like network calls or caching.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and directly conveys the tool's function.

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, read-only operation, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does. There is no need for further elaboration on return values or side effects.

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, so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline score applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it provides no additional parameter-related information.

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 action (Show) and the resource (MCP platform and adapter versions), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or report_bug, which serve 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is simple enough that an agent would infer usage when version information is needed. No explicit conditions or exclusions are provided, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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