memory_version

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

The description states the tool performs a read operation ('Get'), which is non-destructive. However, with no annotations provided, the description does not disclose potential latency, authentication requirements, or whether the version is cached. For a simple version check, this is adequate but minimally transparent.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key information ('Get the current version') and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word contributes meaning.

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 low complexity (no parameters, trivial function) and the existence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is complete. It specifies what information is returned (version of server and configuration) and no additional context is needed.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The input schema is fully defined and empty, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but none are needed, justifying the baseline score of 4.

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 states the tool retrieves the current version of the Memory MCP server and configuration. The verb 'Get' is specific, and the resource 'version of the Memory MCP server and configuration' is unambiguous. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on data operations, project management, or configuration changes.

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 implicitly indicates that this tool is for checking version information. No sibling tool provides version data, so there are no alternatives to exclude. However, explicit guidance on when to use it (e.g., before performing updates or troubleshooting) is absent but not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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