server_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only names output categories. It never confirms the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or requires specific permissions, which matters for an agent deciding whether invocation is safe.

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 tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes meaning by specifying the resource and the categories of information returned.

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 informational tool with an output schema, this description provides adequate basic context: the caller knows what data to expect. However, it omits usage guidance and explicit safety/read-only framing, and it relies heavily on the tool name and output schema to fill gaps.

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 parametershare, so schema description coverage is complete and there is no parameter documentation burden. The description compensates by clarifying what information the call returns, which aligns with the empty input schema.

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 resource ('this server') and enumerates the specific data categories returned: versions, configuration, and run counts. It is clearly distinct from the session-, ticket-, and run-oriented siblings, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns'.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to call this tool versus any sibling. It does not state whether this is the right tool for environment diagnostics, health checks, or setup verification, and it offers no exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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