version

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It accurately conveys a read-only, non-destructive action (returning version info). No behavioral traits are omitted, given the tool's simplicity.

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 sentences long: the first states purpose, the second provides usage guidance. Every word is necessary and front-loaded, no redundancy.

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 has no parameters and an existing output schema, the description completely covers the necessary information: it identifies the output (version + runtime config) and suggests when to use it.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable as no parameters exist. Baseline score is 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?

The description explicitly states the tool returns 'mcp-shield version + runtime config', providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_summary or red_team, which have different purposes.

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 includes a direct usage hint: 'Use when: "what version is deployed?".' This is clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, which are unnecessary for such a straightforward tool.

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