Get Version Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the response includes the server's purpose and source-tracking location, which is context beyond the annotations, but with an output schema present it does not need to enumerate return fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (version, purpose, work tracking) names real content the caller receives.

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-argument read tool with rich annotations and a full output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The only missing piece is sibling differentiation against jt_status/jt_diagnostics, which is a minor gap given how simple the tool is.

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 zero parameters and the tool takes no arguments, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource (this server's version) and expands the payload to include what the server does and where its work is tracked. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never contrasts itself with the nearby jt_status or jt_diagnostics tools, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: as a no-parameter, read-only metadata call an agent can guess it is for orientation/discovery. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over jt_status or jt_diagnostics, and no exclusions.

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