Server info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context by mentioning 'allowed roots' (access constraints) and 'what this build can and cannot do' (capability boundaries), which go beyond what annotations express. There is no contradiction with the read-only hints.

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 a single compact phrase with no filler, naming three distinct content areas in sequence. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core subject ('Versions') and then scopes outward to roots and capabilities. It loses one point only for being a noun phrase rather than a complete instruction, which slightly reduces readability for an agent scanning quickly.

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-parameter, read-only, idempotent capability-discovery tool, the description together with the output schema is complete. The agent knows exactly what kind of information to expect and that the call is safe. No prerequisites, side effects, or error conditions are relevant given the annotations. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the calibration baseline, zero-parameter tools receive a 4 unless the description adds exceptional value, which is not needed here. The description's content list (versions, roots, capabilities) appropriately orients the agent toward what the return payload will cover.

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 concrete subjects—versions, allowed roots, and build capabilities—so the tool's purpose is clear even without an explicit verb. It also distinguishes server_info from sibling document-editing tools by focusing on environment/build facts rather than document operations. It stops short of a full 5 because there is no explicit verb phrase like 'Get server information', though the intent is 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?

The description implies this tool is for discovering build versions, root restrictions, and capability limits, which is enough for an agent to infer when to call it. It does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings or when to avoid it, but the sibling names are all document operations, making the intended use reasonably clear. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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