get_server_info

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

The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or require any privileges. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, yet it adds little beyond the obvious read intent.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes illustrative examples. There is no wasted text or unnecessary detail.

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, parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns and its scope. The examples give the agent a clear mental model, and no further elaboration is 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 fully covers all input. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately avoids redundant parameter explanation.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('server information'), with concrete examples (hostname, OS, IP addresses). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mysql_server_info or get_account_info, which target specific subsystems or scopes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or offer comparisons to similar get_* tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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