version_0_1_1

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. However, the description 'the current version is 0.1.1' doesn't explain what the tool does behaviorally—whether it returns version info, modifies something, or has side effects. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response format, making it inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise with a single sentence, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes its limited space on a tautological statement instead of front-loading useful information about the tool's function. While brief, it fails to earn its place by not conveying actionable details.

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 apparent simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify the tool's purpose or behavior, leaving gaps in understanding what it returns or how it fits with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate by explaining the tool's role, but it does not, making it insufficient for agent use.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's acceptable since there are no parameters. According to the rules, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4, as the schema fully handles the absence of 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?

The description 'the current version is 0.1.1' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'version_0_1_1' without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify any action (like 'get' or 'return') or resource, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like mcp__getComponentGenerator or mcp__getMeta. The description merely states a fact rather than defining a tool's purpose.

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 no explicit or implied instructions about context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like mcp__getDsl and mcp__getMeta, it's unclear if this tool is for retrieving version information or something else, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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