server_version

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states '[READ]' hinting at read-only, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, idempotency, or safety guarantees. Minimal behavioral 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?

Extremely concise: two short sentences plus a clear argument list. No redundant information, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

No output schema, so description could elaborate on return format (e.g., version string, revision). Also, the parameter 'target' suggests multiple servers but not how to configure or list targets. Adequate for simple tool but room for improvement.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful context: 'target: Server target name from config; omit for the default.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose and usage beyond the schema type.

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 it returns CI/CD server version and revision, using a prefix '[READ]' to indicate the action. It distinguishes from siblings that focus on pipelines, runners, artifacts, etc.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include many read tools like list_*, and the description does not mention any specific context or prerequisites.

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