weeek_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool returns the server name and version, which implies a read-only operation with no side effects. For a simple version query, this is sufficient 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and purpose without any filler. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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 trivial nature (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It specifies both the return value (server name and version) and the reason (to check the build), leaving no gaps for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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 zero parameters, and the schema shows an empty properties object. The description does not need to explain parameters. With 0 params, the baseline for parameter semantics is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary detail.

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 tool returns the MCP server's name and version, which precisely identifies its function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that operate on projects, tasks, or members, as no other tool provides version information.

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 gives clear context: the tool is for checking which build is running. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given its unique purpose, no exclusion is necessary. This aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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