GitMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('Validate semantic version') without explaining what validation entails—e.g., whether it checks format compliance, returns success/failure, provides error details, or has side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise—just two words—and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text. It's appropriately sized for a simple validation tool, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what validation means in practice, what the output might be (e.g., boolean result, error message), or how it differs from sibling tools. While the schema covers the parameter, the overall context for using the tool effectively is lacking.

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% description coverage, with the 'version' parameter documented as 'Version to validate'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this—it doesn't clarify what constitutes a valid semantic version, provide examples, or explain validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 as 'Validate semantic version', which is a specific verb ('validate') applied to a specific resource ('semantic version'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'version' and 'version_bump' by focusing on validation rather than retrieval or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'version' (likely retrieves version) and 'version_bump' (likely modifies version), but the description doesn't mention these or provide context about when validation is needed versus other version operations. Usage is implied only by the tool name.

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