Server Info

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

Annotations only include readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavior: it lists the exact fields returned and notes that the upstream version block appears only 'when configured.' This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'Report,' and every phrase adds value. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is fully complete: it states what is returned, the conditional behavior, and the intended use case.

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 is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since the input schema is empty and fully covered.

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's function: 'Report wrapper and upstream version info for logodev-mcp.' It names specific outputs (server_name, server_version, core_version) and is distinct even without siblings.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Useful for verifying a deployment matches the expected build.' Since there are no sibling tools, this is sufficient; no exclusions or alternatives are needed.

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