xano_version

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

Annotations already indicate read-only (readOnlyHint=true), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds value by specifying the return value source ('package.json'), providing additional context beyond annotations.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the verb ('Get'). Every sentence contributes essential information without waste.

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 simple version-retrieval tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return value. It mentions the return is a version string from package.json, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (default). Per instructions, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters.

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's purpose: 'Get the current version of the Xano Developer MCP server.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current version'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on documentation and validation.

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?

While the description does not explicitly state when or when not to use the tool, the use case is straightforward (checking server version) and sibling tools are unrelated, so the context is clear. However, adding a suggestion like 'Use this to verify server version' would improve guidance.

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