Get Version Info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that this is a lightweight, non-health-probe identity read that succeeds even when N1MM isn't broadcasting, implying no dependency on upstream state. It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect behavior, but 'Get' plus 'identity attestation' make a write highly implausible.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, then usage, then the sibling distinction. The 'Returns:' block slightly duplicates the existing output schema, but the content is dense and each section adds value; only minor redundancy keeps it from a 5.

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 identity tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, sibling differentiation, and upstream-independence semantics. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; the description goes beyond by naming the returned fields (service_name, service_version, spec_version), which adds useful meaning despite the empty input schema. This exceeds the zero-parameter baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get n1mm-mcp service version and upstream UDP contract version') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling n1mm_diagnostics by calling itself a 'lighter-weight identity attestation.' An agent can tell exactly what this returns and how it differs from the health probe without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('confirm fleet alignment across MCP deployments — compare service_version and spec_version across servers to detect drift') and names the alternative ('n1mm_diagnostics remains the canonical health probe'), including the condition that selects this tool instead: it 'succeeds even when N1MM isn't broadcasting.'

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