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

The description aligns with the annotations: readOnlyHint is true, idempotentHint is true, and destructiveHint is false. It adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'current' and 'platform and adapter' scope, but it does not describe return format or any other side effects; annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 sentence, grammatically simple, and front-loaded with the action verb 'Show'. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 minimal complexity, zero parameters, and strong annotation coverage, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It clearly states what versions will be displayed.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail because the input schema has no properties to explain.

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 specific verb ('Show') and names a concrete resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and report_bug, which serve different purposes.

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 makes the use context clear: invoke this tool when version information about the MCP platform and adapter is needed. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter informational tool the context is sufficient.

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