quipu_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds only the notable behavioral claim that no REST fallback is required — useful, since it tells the agent this works in a pure-MCP deployment. It says nothing about the identity fields' format, whether the 'served version' can differ from a build artifact, or what 'dirty' means in practice.

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 dense sentence with the read target front-loaded and no filler. 'Dirty-build identity' is mildly jargon-heavy but is the precise term for what is returned, so it earns its place.

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, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does name the three returned items (version, source commit, dirty-build identity). It is close to complete for a trivial read-only diagnostic; only the exact shape/format of those fields is left unstated.

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 and the schema has additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies, with no false hints at optional inputs.

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 and resource set: reading the served version, source commit, and dirty-build identity. That is more concrete than the bare name quipu_version, which could be misread as a versioning/mutation tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors such as quipu_health or quipu_stats, which an agent might equally pick for a 'is the server okay' question.

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 phrase 'through MCP without a REST fallback' implies this is the in-protocol way to get build identity, which is a mild usage signal. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of when an agent should prefer quipu_health or quipu_stats instead, so usage has to be inferred.

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