get_mcp_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (returning version information) but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or has side effects. For a simple read-only tool with no parameters, this is adequate but minimal.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.

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?

For a simple, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides complete enough context about what it does. However, it doesn't specify the return format (e.g., string, object) or any metadata, which could be helpful given the lack of output schema. The simplicity of the tool makes the description largely sufficient.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to add parameter information beyond what the schema already provides (no parameters). This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, as no compensation is 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 specific action ('Returns') and resource ('version of the MCP server'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are focused on Aptos/Geomi development tasks, by being a meta-tool about the server itself.

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 implies usage context (when you need to know the server version), but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Given that it's a unique meta-tool among development-focused siblings, some implicit guidance exists, but no explicit alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.

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