server_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The [READ] tag effectively communicates read-only behavior, and the admin credentials requirement is disclosed. However, it doesn't detail what happens if credentials are insufficient, what the response format looks like, or any rate limits/failure modes—modest but not critical gaps given the simple nature of the operation.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, then the credential requirement, then parameter details. No wasted words. The only minor critique is that the [READ] tag formatting is slightly unusual, but it communicates efficiently.

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 tool with 1 optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core essentials: what it returns at a high level, the credential requirement, and parameter semantics. It could be more complete by describing the output shape or naming the specific admin fields, but given the low complexity, this is a reasonable level of coverage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the 'target' parameter: 'MinIO target name from config; omit for the default.' This fully explains the parameter's purpose and default behavior, covering the only parameter in the schema. This is sufficient semantic guidance.

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 identifies the tool as 'Admin server info' with a [READ] tag, and specifies it returns mode and servers/pools summary. It's distinguished from siblings like drive_status, node_status, and cluster_status by naming the specific scope (server-level info + pools summary). However, it doesn't name alternative tools for positioning.

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 explicitly notes 'Needs admin credentials,' which is a clear prerequisite/usage constraint. The [READ] prefix implies it's for inspection rather than mutation, distinguishing it from write tools. It gives the context for when to use it (admin server info) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for related queries.

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