get_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. The verb 'Return' implies a safe read operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly mention that it is non-destructive or disclose any error handling or return format. However, the existence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe the return value.

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 sentence with six words, front-loaded and free of any irrelevant information. Every word earns its place.

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 utility tool that simply returns a version, the description is fully complete. The presence of an output schema covers the return format, and the distinguishing sibling tools are all different in purpose, so no additional context is needed.

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, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter details. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters.

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 the API version for MCP server.' It uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('API version') and is easily distinguishable from sibling tools such as ping or get_validation_result.

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 the tool is used to retrieve the server's API version, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Given the simplicity of the tool and lack of similar siblings, the implied usage is sufficient, but no exclusions are stated.

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