version

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It specifies a read-only operation ('Return'), lists what is returned, and implies no side effects. Additional explicit safety reassurance would be ideal, but current info is sufficient.

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?

Description is informative with a clear structure: lists versions, gives use cases. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly, but overall efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, likely a straightforward output schema), the description covers all necessary context: what versions are returned and why to use it. It is complete for guiding an AI agent.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info (none needed) but provides context about the output content, which is useful beyond the 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?

Description clearly states the tool returns installed versions of the server and key dependencies, naming specific packages. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on version info, and provides concrete use cases.

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 advises using it to confirm the server build, check for features or fixes, or detect stale installs. While no alternative tools are mentioned, the context is clear and the tool's simplicity makes exclusions unnecessary.

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