version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. The description states what data is returned (version, engines, SDK version, build info), which adds behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose whether the tool makes network calls, requires authentication, or whether the data reflects the server or client. For a read-only informational tool with no annotations, the description provides reasonable but not exhaustive transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence that covers all return categories. It's efficient and contains no filler or redundancy. It earns a slight deduction from 5 because it could arguably enumerate what 'build information' means, but as written it's appropriately minimal and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema and no annotations. Given this low complexity, the description specifying the four categories of returned data (version, engines, SDK, build) is reasonably complete. The definition adequately covers what an agent needs to know to decide when to invoke it and what to expect back, though it doesn't detail the return format structure.

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 there's nothing the description needs to add about parameter semantics. Per the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description appropriately lists the categories of information returned (version, engines, SDK, build), which is useful context even though no params exist.

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 what the tool does: 'Return server version, supported engines, MCP SDK version, and build information.' It uses a specific verb (return) with a specific resource (server version/engines/SDK/build). While it doesn't need to differentiate from siblings (none of the siblings are version-related), the purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 implies usage context (retrieve version/info when needed), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or when not to. Given the sibling tools are all resume-related operations and this is an informational/metadata tool, the usage context is fairly obvious, but there's no explicit guidance about when to call it (e.g., 'call this to verify server compatibility or debug SDK mismatches').

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