Get Versions

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: discloses the X-Mantis-Version header source, the outbound HTTPS call with up to 5 seconds latency, the enumerated status values, and the graceful degradation when MantisBT is unreachable (error field while mcp_server is still returned). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the response shape, then explains the check_latest behavior and failure mode. The inline JSON sketch is slightly bulky but earns its place by documenting an otherwise unstated return value.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value, which it does in detail including the specific keys and the error fallback. Combined with its explanation of the only parameter, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter is already documented, but the description adds real meaning: the default of true is restated along with the consequence (GitHub fetch + comparison) and the cost (up to 5 seconds), so the agent understands the tradeoff of setting it false.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: returns the version of both the mcp-server and the connected MantisBT installation, plus a clear response shape. However, sibling tools get_mcp_version and get_mantis_version exist and the description never explains how this combined tool relates to them, leaving differentiation to inference.

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 implied by the response description (use it to get both versions at once) and check_latest explains the GitHub comparison behavior. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion versus get_mcp_version / get_mantis_version, which an agent would need to choose correctly between near-identical siblings.

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