server_info

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by saying 'Read'. The description adds valuable behavioral guarantees: it will not reveal keys and will not contact the provider, which goes beyond the annotation. This provides useful context about safety and external dependencies.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, the resource, and the key constraints without any filler. Every word earns its place, and the critical safety qualifier ('without revealing keys') is placed early.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It states what the tool does and its behavioral limits, leaving no ambiguity about invocation or expected results. The annotations reinforce the read-only nature, and the description covers everything else needed.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. According to the calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('PdhAPI configuration'), and adds a distinguishing constraint ('without revealing keys or contacting the provider'). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from the unrelated image tools in its sibling list.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, since the sibling tools are all image-generation/editing tools, there is no ambiguity about when this tool applies. Still, no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided, so the score reflects that it is only implied.

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