Version et diagnostics serveur

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is fully consistent with them (no contradiction). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: no external network call, no side effects, <10ms latency, and the compact typed return shape. Given the annotations carry the safety profile, the extra performance and network behavior context earns a 4.

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?

Three short, front-loaded paragraphs: purpose and return shape first, then use cases, then exclusions. Every sentence earns its place, though the return fields are effectively mentioned twice (once in the dict description and once in the use-case sentence), a minor redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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, read-only diagnostic tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, use cases, exclusions, return shape, and performance. It does not spell out the exact format of each dict value, but for such a low-complexity tool nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 of 4 applies — there is nothing to document. The description instead clarifies the output shape ({package_version, mcp_sdk_version, python_version, transport, cache_ttls}), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema.

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 purpose: diagnosing server version and runtime configuration. It names the exact resource (FFBB MCP server), lists the returned fields, and explicitly differentiates itself from basket-data tools (ffbb_search, ffbb_club, ffbb_bilan) and from the live-health endpoint (/health). An agent can instantly tell what this tool is and is not for.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (diagnose deployed version, verify transport stdio vs streamable-http, inspect TTLs before debugging another tool) and when not to (not for basket data, not for live health, with named alternatives). This is textbook usage guidance — nothing is left to inference.

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