get_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and the verb 'Report' plus the enumerated fields make it clear this is a non-mutating informational read with no arguments. It stops short of stating side-effect or permission characteristics explicitly, but for a zero-parameter local version lookup there is little behavioral risk left undisclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, fully front-loaded with the purpose followed immediately by the motivating use case. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

A zero-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations; the description explains what data is returned and why you would call it, which is everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description instead specifies what is reported (ksj-mcp, mcp, pydantic, python), which is a small useful addition.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Report the running ksj-mcp version and key dependency versions (mcp, pydantic, python).' No sibling tool covers version reporting, so it is trivially distinguishable from the list.

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?

Explicitly names the use case: 'Use this to confirm an install or upgrade actually took effect.' This gives a clear context for invocation. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool competes for this purpose, so the gap is minor.

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