get_server_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves detailed server information, without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, requires permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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, efficient phrase in French that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details. There's no waste, but it lacks structural elements like bullet points or examples that might enhance clarity.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how it differs from other info-retrieval siblings, or what the agent should expect in return. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to guide effective use, but it falls short.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('ID du serveur'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as where to find the guildId or if it's optional. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's clarity.

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 'Informations détaillées du serveur' (Detailed server information) states the general purpose of retrieving server details, which is clear but vague. It uses a verb-like phrase 'Informations détaillées' implying retrieval, but lacks specificity about what information is included or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_user_info' or 'statut_bot'. It's not tautological with the name 'get_server_info', but doesn't fully distinguish from siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_user_info' for user details, 'list_channels' for channel listings, and 'statut_bot' for bot status, there's no indication of whether this tool is for general server metadata, configuration, or other specifics. Usage is implied only by the name and description, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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