dl_server_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond those annotations: it performs no DataLens or project access, implying no credentials, no network/project side effects and no state change. It does not describe output shape, but the key behavioral trait (isolated, local, non-invasive) is disclosed.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the returned fields with no filler. Every clause earns its place, including the scope qualifier.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description carries its share: it names the three returned items and clarifies the isolation guarantee. Slight gap in that the exact structure of the 'installed version comparison' is not hinted at, but for a simple info endpoint this is adequate.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with additionalProperties false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool; the description correctly signals no input is required.

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 gives a specific verb (Return) and concrete resources (process/package identity, capability revision, installed version comparison), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. The trailing scope note ('without accessing DataLens or the project') implicitly separates it from siblings like dl_auth_check or dl_object_get, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: a diagnostic/identity tool used before or independently of project work. The phrase 'without accessing DataLens or the project' hints at when it is safe or appropriate to call, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the 24 sibling tools.

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