Server info and version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only action via 'Return' and implies a running server, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or error conditions. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple info tool.

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, well-structured sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose and output. No redundant words or filler, making it concise and immediately scannable.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a simple read-only function, the description fully covers the necessary information: what the tool returns and its intended purpose. There is no missing context that would hinder an agent from using it correctly.

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. The description does not add parameter details (since none exist), but it does clarify the output (version and package identifier), which is more than schema alone provides. No issues here.

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 specifies the tool's function: returning the running server version and package identifier. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on verification-oriented server metadata, a unique scope among the listed tools.

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 'for verification' provides an implied usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as tmux_health or tmux_state. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so it falls short of clear usage guidelines.

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