get_server_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's only added value is telling the agent what categories of information come back, which is modest but real. It says nothing about whether the values are cached, whether they reflect the running process, or why a read-only call would expose mutation-flavored arguments.

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?

One short, front-loaded fragment with zero filler, and the most distinguishing content (server version, MCP SDK) comes first. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, so it does not lose points for verbosity.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the read-only annotations cover safety, so the burden on the description is low. Still, the undocumented required 'request' argument and the absence of any usage context leave it only minimally adequate for a diagnostic tool an agent may reach for when debugging.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required 'request' object, whose nested fields (dry_run, confirm_delete, expected_revision) are generic mutation-safety arguments that look nonsensical for a read-only introspection tool. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent with no guidance on what to put there. Only the fact that it is a trivial single wrapper argument keeps this above 1.

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 a specific resource and enumerates its contents (server version, MCP SDK, platform, protocol), so an agent can tell this is a server/environment introspection call rather than a session or capability query. It is a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement, and it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_session_info or get_capabilities.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the nearby alternatives (get_session_info, get_capabilities) that an agent could easily confuse this with. The agent must infer that this is a diagnostics/introspection call from the field list alone.

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