server_version

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Declares read-only nature via '[READ]', implying no side effects. Lists output fields but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or any potential impact. Adequate for a simple read tool.

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?

Extremely concise: a single line for the purpose and a one-line argument description. Front-loaded with '[READ]'. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate. It names the key outputs and one parameter. However, it lacks details on return format or any prerequisites. Could be more complete but sufficient for basic use.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), so description adds value by explaining 'target' as a config name and default behavior. This provides context beyond the schema's minimal definition.

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?

Description clearly states it is a [READ] operation and lists specific information: server version, uptime, recovery state, and data directory. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that are administrative or analytical. However, it does not elaborate on the format or exact fields, so not 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?

Provides guidance for the 'target' parameter but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to sibling tools. Usage is implied by the read nature, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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