clipboard_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond them: the version is read from package metadata at runtime, always matches the serving wheel, and falls back to '0.0.0+dev' if metadata is unavailable.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage contexts and return details. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying when to call it or what the fallback behavior is.

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 version tool with no destructive behavior, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, when to use it, the return shape, and the fallback case. The output schema exists, but the description's extra return detail is helpful rather than redundant.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline score for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the version of mcp-clipboard currently running.' It is immediately distinguishable from the clipboard-content siblings (paste, copy, read_raw, list_formats, etc.) because it reports package metadata rather than clipboard data.

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?

It gives clear usage contexts: test harnesses, diagnostic dumps, or when the user asks which version is installed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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