server_info

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description reinforces it with '[READ]' rather than contradicting it. It adds genuine context beyond annotations: an admin-credential requirement and the scope of returned data (mode, servers/pools summary). It does not cover rate limits, pagination, or output shape.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the read marker, capability, and credential requirement come first, with the argument detail separated into a compact Args block. The sectioned format costs a few tokens but aids scanning.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the essentials are present: what it returns, what auth it needs, and how the one parameter behaves. The remaining gap is not differentiating its output from other cluster/health status siblings, which an agent may need to pick correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% — the target property has no description at all — so the description's 'MinIO target name from config; omit for the default' is doing real work, explaining both the value source and the null/omit behavior. That fully compensates for the single undocumented parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieves admin server info covering 'mode, servers/pools summary'. This is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like cluster_status, fleet_overview, or node_status, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 only usage signal is the prerequisite 'Needs admin credentials' — useful but not guidance about when to choose this over cluster_status, fleet_overview, health_cluster, or drive_status. No when-not or alternative routing is provided despite a dense sibling cluster.

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