server_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the '[READ]' prefix adds nothing. The description does add value by enumerating the returned data points (version, uptime, recovery state, data directory), which gives the agent a sense of what a call yields, but it says nothing about permissions, connection scope, or failure behavior.

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 purpose sentence comes first, then a compact Args block. The Google-style docstring formatting ('Args:') is slightly mechanical for a tool description but costs little and no sentence is wasted.

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 output schema, the description compensates by naming the fields returned, and the single optional parameter is documented. Nothing about pagination or error modes is needed for a one-shot diagnostic read, so the definition is close to sufficient, short only on connection/authorization context.

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 carries the full parameter burden, and it does: 'target' is a target name from config, and omitting it selects the default. That is exactly the semantics an agent needs to invoke correctly, though it doesn't hint at valid formats or where the config lives.

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 (read) and resource (server version/uptime/recovery state/data directory), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not differentiate from overlap-prone siblings such as overview or replication_status, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 'omit for the default' on the target argument, which is a parameter note rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no guidance on when to pick this over overview or other diagnostics tools, and no exclusions.

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