get_server_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get ... version and build information' reasonably implies a read-only, side-effect-free call, but the description never says so explicitly, nor does it mention whether it contacts OmniFocus or works offline.

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 short sentence that leads with the verb and names the exact payload. Nothing wasted, nothing buried.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema metadata getter, the description gives enough to call it correctly. It would be complete at 5 if it clarified the read-only nature or distinguished it from the other diagnostic siblings.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies, and the description correctly adds no noise about 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: 'Get OmniFocus MCP server version and build information.' An agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from the near-neighbor diagnostics siblings diagnose_connection and get_system_health, which keeps it off a 5.

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 by the resource name — an agent infers this is for checking server version/build. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus diagnose_connection or get_system_health, which overlap in the 'is the server OK' space.

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