get_build_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. It states this is a 'get' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, what format the information returns in, or if there are any rate limits. The description is adequate but lacks operational context.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't specify what 'comprehensive build and runtime information' includes, what format it returns, or whether this is a diagnostic tool versus a status check. Given the absence of both annotations and output schema, more detail would be helpful.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist, though it could potentially mention that no inputs are required for this operation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive build and runtime information about the server'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'portfolio_status' or 'oauth_helper_status' which might also provide server-related information, preventing a perfect score.

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 'portfolio_status' and 'oauth_helper_status' that might overlap in providing server information, there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other status-checking tools.

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