get_server_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does transparently list the information returned (version, edition, OS, memory, CPU), which indicates a read-only inspection. However, it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, nor does it mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a simple info retrieval tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, tightly worded sentence that leads with the core action and resource, then lists the key output fields. It contains zero filler and is fully front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations), the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource and the return fields. It does not explain formatting, error handling, or behavior on missing servers, but these are minor gaps for a simple info retrieval tool. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in most cases.

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 already has a complete description for the only parameter ('server' with 'Target server name (uses default if omitted)'), giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional context about the parameter, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema alone covers parameter semantics.

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 clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('SQL Server instance information'), and enumerates the exact data fields returned (version, edition, OS, memory, CPU). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_database_info or get_active_queries, which target different levels.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, such as 'use get_database_info for database-level details,' nor does it state any prerequisites or conditions. The context is implied by the name and field list, but there is no explicit routing to help an agent choose among siblings.

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