get_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read-only operation ('returns') and no side effects. However, it does not mention potential network calls, caching, or error behavior. Given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient but leaves a small gap.

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, front-loaded sentence of 8 words. Every word is essential. No wasted verbiage; it is optimally concise for the information conveyed.

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?

The description adequately communicates the tool's purpose. However, with no output schema, it could be improved by specifying the return format (e.g., 'Returns a string with the version number'). As is, it is complete enough for most agents but leaves a minor gap in expectations.

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, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description is not penalized for missing param details that don't exist.

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 ('returns') and resource ('running cc-agent MCP server version'), clearly distinguishing the tool from over 40 siblings. It directly states what the tool does without ambiguity.

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?

While the description implies the tool is for retrieving version information, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. For a simple tool this is minimally viable, but lacks proactive context.

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