read_latest_mcp_server_version

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

The description does not add behavioral context beyond the annotation's 'readOnlyHint'. It does not describe potential side effects, network calls, or data freshness guarantees. With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, the description adds minimal value here.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and is optimally concise.

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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover readOnly behavior, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 provides 100% coverage of the parameters (none). Therefore, the description does not need to add parameter details, and a baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 latest version of the QC MCP Server, with a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('latest version'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'read_mcp_server_version', which might imply a different version retrieval mechanism.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_mcp_server_version'. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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