Get Server Version and Build Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description builds on them with substantial added context: it discloses that no connection is required, explicitly states it returns no configuration, credentials, or URLs (security-relevant), explains the build.id format and '.dirty' suffix, and interprets the 'unavailable' build.source edge case. This goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

Four sentences and roughly 115 words — near the upper limit, but every sentence earns its place: field enumeration, a practical reporting tip (quote build.id), a security-relevant exclusion, and an edge-case interpretation. The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause.

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?

With zero required parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return-value documentation, and it does: it enumerates all fields, explains the build.id disambiguation convention for nightly builds, covers the missing-metadata case, and confirms the tool's connectivity and data-safety profile. Nothing needed 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the single response_format parameter has a full enum and per-value explanations. The description doesn't need to add parameter detail, and the baseline 3 applies because the schema fully carries that burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report this MCP server's own version and build identity for diagnostics and bug reports.' It enumerates the exact fields returned, and no sibling tool overlaps with version reporting, so an agent can distinguish it immediately from the 80+ operational tools in the sibling list.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('for diagnostics and bug reports') and gives a condition that makes it uniquely available ('Needs no OpenL Studio connection'). It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but none are needed since no sibling performs version reporting.

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