Get Version Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the exact returned fields and clarifies the meaning of each version (PyPI, NetLogger API, contract), which adds useful context. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, auth requirements, or rate limits, but the read-only retrieval behavior is strongly implied and no contradiction exists.

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 two compact sentences plus a structured return list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every part earns its place.

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 (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what is returned even though the output schema covers this, and it clearly defines the tool's scope. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit usage guidance, which is largely inferable.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter semantics need to be explained, and the description appropriately omits parameter details.

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 resource (version info), and precisely enumerates the three version types: the MCP version, the NetLogger API version, and the record version. It clearly distinguishes this informational tool from all operational siblings.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, for a zero-parameter version retrieval tool, the usage is strongly implied: call it when version metadata is needed. No alternatives exist among siblings, so the lack of routing guidance is not critical.

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