Server information

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavior burden well: it discloses that no FreeCAD connection is made and that the call is always safe, plus the exact information returned. It doesn't mention side effects beyond that (e.g., whether environment reporting is expensive), but the safety profile is clear.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: what is returned, the parameter's effect, and the safety/no-FreeCAD constraint. The key scoping claim is front-loaded.

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-value explanation isn't required, yet the description still summarizes the payload and covers the safety constraint and the parameter. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the single parameter — and it does: include_environment=true additionally reports the host Python environment. The default-false behavior is only implied ('also'), not stated outright, keeping it from a 5.

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 and resource ('Return diagnostic information about this freecad-mcp server') and enumerates exactly what is reported: name, version, MCP SDK version, and FreeCAD bridge status. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from freecad_status by declaring it does not contact FreeCAD.

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 clear call context ('safe to call at any time', 'does not contact FreeCAD') and a conditional usage rule for include_environment=true. It never explicitly names a sibling alternative to use instead, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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