get_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool retrieves the 'running' server's package name and version, which implies a read-only operation without side effects. However, it does not explicitly disclose whether any network call or latency is involved, nor does it confirm that the operation is non-destructive. For such a simple query, this is adequate but not richly detailed.

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 long: the first states what the tool does, and the second adds a practical use case. It is front-loaded with the action, every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough. It clearly explains what is returned (package name and version) and why it might be used. There are no complex behaviors or side effects to document, so the description fully satisfies the context needs.

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 baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter-related information since there are no parameters to explain. It focuses on the tool's purpose, which is sufficient.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the running evipedia MCP server's package name and version.' It is distinct from sibling tools that handle reviews, metadata, and interventions, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear usage context: 'Useful to confirm which build is loaded.' This implies when to use the tool (e.g., verifying the server version). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but given the tool's unique function, this is adequate and provides clear context without exclusions.

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