Backlog version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Returns' clearly signals a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is important. It does not, however, describe response format, error conditions, or authentication needs, though the simplicity of the tool makes these gaps minor.

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, well-formed sentence that immediately states the tool's output. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail—every word contributes to the meaning.

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-parameter, read-only tool, this description is nearly complete. It clearly identifies what information is returned. The only minor gap is that it does not elaborate on what 'protocol compatibility information' contains; however, an agent can safely call the tool and inspect the response since there are no side effects or required inputs.

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 is empty and the tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description needs no additional parameter information.

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 specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('API version and protocol compatibility information'), making the tool's function unmistakable. Although it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, no sibling has a remotely similar purpose, so the description effectively distinguishes it from all alternatives.

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 implies the usage: call this tool when you need API version or protocol compatibility details. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over related tools such as backlog.health, nor does it mention prerequisites. The guidance is only implied, not stated.

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