Version et diagnostics serveur

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context about the return value ('structure compacte et strictement typée'), which helps agents parse the response, but it does not disclose additional runtime behaviors such as caching, latency, or what specific version fields are included.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool returns, and the second explains the return structure's shape and intended audience. Everything 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?

For a zero-parameter version/diagnostics tool, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (version and runtime configuration) and the nature of the return structure (compact, strictly typed). With no output schema present, this is adequate for an agent to know what to expect and how it differs from the data-focused sibling tools.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about arguments. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies here, and the description appropriately focuses on the output rather than 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 clearly states a specific resource (the FFBB MCP server) and what it returns: 'Informations de version et configuration runtime du serveur FFBB MCP.' This aligns with the title 'Version et diagnostics serveur' and is easily distinguishable from the sibling tools (search, bilan, get), which serve different purposes.

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 gives a use context—'pratique pour les agents et les outils de supervision'—indicating this is a diagnostics/monitoring tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling or exclusion condition. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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