get_server_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It states that the tool 'Returns' data, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. While it doesn't explicitly mention side effects or lack thereof, the nature of the operation (fetching version info) makes it safe to assume no modifications occur. This is adequate for a simple getter.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's output. It uses clear language ('Returns { serverVersion, minPluginVersion }') without any superfluous information. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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?

Although no output schema is provided, the description explicitly lists the return fields (serverVersion and minPluginVersion), giving users a complete picture of what to expect. This is sufficient for a tool with such a simple output. No additional context is required for understanding the tool's behavior or result.

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 coverage is trivially 100% (no parameters to document). The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage and no parameter info, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-related details because none are needed.

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's purpose: it retrieves the server version and minimum plugin version for the LeadAck backend MCP server. The verb 'Returns' specifies the action, and the resource (server version) is unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which appear to fetch 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 conveys the tool's function without explicit guidance on when to use it. Since it is a simple getter with no alternatives, the context is implied. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparison with other tools, though the simplicity of the operation makes it clear it should be called when version information is needed.

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