get_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the output (version number) but does not mention whether the operation involves network calls, requires authentication, or has side effects. For a tool this simple, a statement like 'read-only, no side effects' would be helpful.

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 consists of two concise, focused sentences: the first states the core function, the second adds a practical use case. No unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (no parameters, output schema likely available), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose and usage context. A minor improvement would be to note that the operation is local and safe, but overall it suffices.

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 input schema is fully covered by the empty schema. The description adds no parameter details but does not need to. Score is baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 action ('restituisce la versione installata') and the specific resource ('mt5-remote-reader-mcp'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools which deal with accounts, terminals, and VPS rather than version info.

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 includes a practical use case ('verificare che il package sia aggiornato'), providing implicit guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, though such distinctions are unnecessary given the tool's simplicity.

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