get_version

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. "Retrieve" implies a non-mutating read and the sentence lists the categories of data returned, which is useful, but it says nothing about whether the call is local or remote, whether it requires a license key or auth, or whether results are cached — all plausible concerns given the licensing siblings.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, hedging, or repetition. Every clause (version, protocol specification, runtime metadata) carries distinct information about the return content.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating what the response contains, which is the main thing an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around auth/licensing requirements and whether the call has side effects, but for a zero-param metadata read this is close to sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, avoiding noise.

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 ("Retrieve") and enumerates the concrete resources returned: active package version, protocol specification, and runtime metadata of the Fredo QA MCP Server. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which all deal with skills or licensing, though the description never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery/metadata call to make before other operations, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. For a zero-parameter read tool the inference is easy, but the description does no active work here.

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