Aedifion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the read operation but omits details about caching, authentication requirements, or rate limiting. However, the existence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, and the zero-parameter nature limits behavioral complexity.

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?

Single sentence with no redundant prose. The front-loaded structure immediately communicates intent without wasting tokens on obvious elaborations.

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 low complexity (zero parameters), the presence of an output schema, and the self-evident nature of the operation, the description is sufficiently complete. It identifies what resource is accessed, which is adequate for this utility function.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed by focusing solely on the retrieval action, meeting the baseline expectation for arity-zero 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('aedifion API version'). While it does not explicitly contrast itself against sibling 'get_' tools, the target resource is unique enough to avoid confusion with other getters like get_project or get_user.

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 provides no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'ping' for connectivity checks), nor does it mention typical use cases like version compatibility checks.

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