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. It discloses what data is returned but omits safety characteristics (read-only vs destructive), caching behavior, or performance implications that would help an agent understand operational constraints.

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?

Two well-structured sentences with zero waste. First sentence front-loads the action and return values; second sentence provides usage context. Every word earns its place.

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 (no parameters) and lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by enumerating the returned metadata fields. Could improve by noting whether data is cached or real-time, but sufficient for agent selection.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4 per evaluation rules. No parameter explanation is required or provided.

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 specific verb 'Returns' with concrete resource details (server metadata: name, version, registered tools, resources). It clearly distinguishes this introspection tool from string-manipulation siblings like reverse_string and word_count.

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?

States it's 'Useful for introspection and health checks,' providing implied context for usage. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use comparisons against alternatives or conditions where this tool is preferred.

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