Eco Server Info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. The terms 'info' and the enumerated read-only data (version, tools, cache health) strongly imply a non-destructive read, but it never explicitly states that it is read-only, has no side effects, or whether it requires a live connection.

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 tight sentence that leads with what is returned and closes with the use case. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-described, and the zero-parameter signature removes input ambiguity. For a simple diagnostic tool this is nearly complete; the only gap is the absence of an explicit read-only/no-side-effect statement given there are no annotations.

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, so the schema's 100% coverage is trivially complete and no parameter explanation is required. Baseline 4 applies since there is nothing for the description to clarify or compensate for.

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 names the concrete outputs (server version, registered tools, cache health), which is specific enough to distinguish this diagnostic tool from every financial sibling in the list. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'reports', but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

'useful for debugging connectivity' gives a clear context for when to reach for it. There are no near-alternative siblings to route against, so no exclusions are needed, though it could state that it takes no arguments and is safe to call anytime.

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