rt_check_protocol_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description partially covers behavioral traits by listing what it flags (missing version, vulnerable SDK, outdated protocol). However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. Thus, it is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 front-loads the main purpose ('check MCP server's reported name and version') and efficiently lists flagged issues. 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?

For a straightforward check tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is checked and what flags are raised. It lacks details about output format or return values, but that is not required given the missing output schema.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 checks the MCP server's reported name and version from initialization and flags specific issues like missing version info, known vulnerable SDK versions, and outdated protocol versions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on other security aspects.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other runtime checks. No explicit context or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision support.

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