Get MantisBT Version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint and no destructiveness, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the version comes from the X-Mantis-Version response header, and the comparison performs an outbound HTTPS request to the GitHub API — an external-network side effect worth flagging for a nominally read-only tool.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: the core purpose is front-loaded, then the data source, then the network caveat. Every sentence 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-required-parameter, single-flag tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (a version, optionally with a latest-release comparison) and where it is sourced. Only the exact shape of the comparison result is unspecified, which is a minor gap given the absence of an 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 description coverage is 100% and the single check_latest parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description restates that the comparison is optional and notes the outbound GitHub request, but adds no syntax or default nuance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Returns the version of the connected MantisBT installation') plus its optional comparison behavior. It is clearly distinguishable from the version-shaped sibling get_mcp_version because the resource is explicitly named (MantisBT vs MCP), though the description never names that sibling directly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent would call this to discover the connected server's version, and the optional GitHub comparison hints at a 'is my instance current?' use case. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing against the similar get_mcp_version sibling.

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