Get Server Info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It uses 'Get,' which signals read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly disclose that the operation has no side effects, requires no permissions, or is safe to call. For this simple, zero-parameter info tool, the implied read-only nature is minimal but not fully explicit.

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 sentence with no filler; the primary action and resource are front-loaded, and 'available tools' adds meaningful scope in a few words. It is appropriately sized for a simple introspection tool.

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 zero-parameter interface and presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's two functions, server information and tool discovery, sufficiently for an agent to know what this tool offers, though it leaves implicit how the returned data is structured.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to document inputs. The empty input schema fully covers the parameter surface, and this parameterless case earns the baseline of 4.

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 ('Get') and names the resource ('server information') plus 'available tools,' which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling analysis and position tools. It is more than a restatement of the title because it adds the tool-listing capability.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving server-level information and discovering available tools, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any prerequisite or context such as 'call this first.' Since siblings are all market/analysis tools, the usage context is mostly inferable rather than directly stated.

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