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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of indicating behavior. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the resource is non-sensitive server metadata. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or return format, leaving some gaps for a completely transparent assessment.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 parameter-free tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the high-level return value (server information, version, capabilities). It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool, though it could provide more detail on response structure if needed.

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 schema covers everything. The description adds context about what information is retrieved (version, capabilities), which is useful. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets that.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'server information, version, and capabilities'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools focused on code analysis (e.g., xmp4_callees, xmp4_grep).

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 makes it clear the tool is for retrieving server-level details, which is distinct from the other xmp4 tools that query source code relationships. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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