Server health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only, no side effects' and adds the return shape, which is useful. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides the exact returned fields, going beyond the annotation set.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first states the core action, the second describes the return and the primary use case. No filler, perfectly front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter health-check tool with a comprehensive annotation set and an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns, when to call it, and that it's safe. Nothing essential is missing.

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 the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to clarify; the schema is empty and the description correctly focuses on output.

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 function: 'Return server and dependency versions.' It specifies a concrete verb and resource, and the 'Useful as a first call to verify the server is running' clarifies its purpose. The sibling tools are all validation-focused, so this stands apart as a health check.

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 gives explicit use context: 'Useful as a first call to verify the server is running and to check version compatibility.' It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the sibling set is entirely validation tools, the intended use is clear. A slight gap is the lack of explicit exclusions.

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