Server Info

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful conditional detail that the upstream version block appears only 'when configured', but it otherwise provides no deeper behavioral context such as failure modes or configuration prerequisites.

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 two crisp sentences: purpose is front-loaded, return fields are named, and the use case is stated. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, a conditional behavior, and a use case. The only notable gap is the lack of an explicit contrast with the version-related sibling get_remote_version, which would make the selection decision more robust.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details. This matches the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource ('wrapper and upstream version info for paperless-mcp'), then lists the exact returned fields. This makes the tool's purpose very clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the similarly named sibling get_remote_version.

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 statement 'Useful for verifying a deployment matches the expected build' provides a concrete, explicit context for when to call this tool. It does not exclude alternatives or mention get_remote_version, but for a simple read-only info endpoint this is sufficient guidance.

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