get_version_info

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

No annotations are provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: it is a read-only operation that returns specific fields (service_name, service_version, spec_version). No destructive or complex side effects are 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 relatively concise, with a clear front-loaded statement and an additional paragraph explaining the use case. It could be slightly tighter, but it 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 no parameters and an output schema implied by 'Returns:', the description covers all needed aspects: what it does, why to use it, and what it returns. It is complete for a simple utility tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the return fields and purpose, but no parameter details are needed.

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 it retrieves wspr-mcp service and upstream spec version, with specific verbs 'Get' and 'Returns'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on wspr data like band activity or spots.

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 explicitly says to use for confirming fleet alignment and detecting drift across MCP deployments. It does not mention when not to use, but given its simplicity and lack of sibling overlap, this is sufficient.

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