Get MantisBT Version

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations. Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent, but the description explains the version source (header) and the optional network call for comparison. This gives the agent insight into potential latency or network requirements.

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 two sentences: the first defines the core functionality, the second explains the technical mechanism. No redundant information, perfectly concise.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the return value (version from header) and the optional comparison. It could explicitly state the return format, but it's adequate.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the only parameter. The tool description reinforces that the 'check_latest' parameter triggers a GitHub API call, adding behavioral context that the schema alone does not provide.

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 returns the version of the MantisBT installation and optionally compares it to the latest release. The verb 'returns' and specific resource 'version' make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_mcp_version and get_config.

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 context on how the version is obtained (from the X-Mantis-Version header) and that the comparison requires an outbound GitHub request. This helps the agent understand the tool's dependencies. No explicit 'when not to use' is provided, but the siblings are distinct enough.

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