get_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'Get the current version' without mentioning that this is a read-only operation, whether it requires network access, potential errors, or the return format. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure.

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, short sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description effectively explains the tool's function for a trivial version-getter. The lack of edge cases or prerequisites keeps the tool simple, so the description is mostly complete, though a note about the return type would have made it fully complete.

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 per the guidelines. The description correctly adds no parameter information since the schema already documents an empty properties object; there is nothing more needed.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('qubic-mcp server version'), making its purpose unmistakable. It naturally distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which relate to version retrieval.

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 tool's intended use is implied by its name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. Since no sibling performs a similar function, this is acceptable yet still lacks any contextual instruction.

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