get_server_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return ... server version, transport, tool count, KB docs' clearly indicates a read-only information retrieval operation with no mutation or side effects. The KB pointer and example also help the agent understand what to expect, though there is no explicit statement about failure modes or prerequisites.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the return payload in one sentence, adding a relevant KB pointer, and providing a minimal example. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple, zero-parameter info tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It tells the agent what fields will be returned, points to the knowledge base, and shows the invocation form. Nothing essential 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no semantic burden to carry. Baseline 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the included example call reinforces that the tool takes no arguments.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource (Unreal-MCP-Ghost server info) while enumerating the exact fields returned: version, transport, tool count, KB docs, and a start-here prompt. It is clear and self-contained, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling info tools like server_lifecycle_status or server_transport_diagnostics.

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 clearly signals the intended context ('for newly connected MCP agents') and points to the knowledge base for mandatory rules, giving an agent enough situational awareness to call it during onboarding. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a zero-parameter info tool.

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