get_version_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly discloses that this is a read operation (get) and specifies the exact return fields (service_name, service_version, spec_version). No destructive behavior is implied.

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 three sentences long: first sentence states the core purpose, second provides a use case, third lists return values. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, why to use it, and what it returns. It is complete for a version info tool without missing details.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to cover param semantics, but it adds value by detailing the output fields, which helps the agent understand what the tool returns without needing the 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?

The description clearly states 'Get iota-mcp service version and upstream programme data version', specifying the exact resources and operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like iota_dxcc or iota_search by focusing on version information.

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 provides a clear use case: 'confirm fleet alignment across MCP deployments'. It explains when to use (to detect drift) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives, though the sibling tools cover different IOTA functions.

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