get_version_info

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

No annotations provided, but description fully explains the tool returns version information and implies no side effects. It is transparent about what the tool does and returns.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a Returns line. Front-loaded with main purpose, then usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 the presence of an output schema (which defines return fields), the description fully explains purpose, usage, and return values. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no confusion.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. The description correctly does not include parameter details as none exist. Baseline score 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves service and LoTW schema version information. Uses specific verbs and resources ('get version info', 'service version', 'schema version'). Distinct from sibling tools which handle confirmations, downloads, QSOs, etc.

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 this tool to confirm fleet alignment across MCP deployments by comparing version strings, providing a clear scenario and benefit. No alternative tools are needed for this purpose.

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