Describe this server

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it makes no network calls, requires no permissions, reports write mode (plan vs apply), exposes per-call limits, and names gated-out tools via excludedTools. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, all substantive. The main purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed by the usage trigger and the excludedTools clarification. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 meta-tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool returns conceptually, when to call it, its local/no-permission behavior, and a note about gated tools. The context is complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning to the 'profile' parameter beyond what the schema already states, though it does mention 'active profile' as part of the server state being described. The schema itself is sufficient.

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 verb ('describe') and a specific resource ('this server'), then enumerates exactly what will be described: registered packages/tools, site, active profile, write mode, and per-call limits. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the operational Jira siblings by framing it as a local metadata/introspection tool.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call it first when a tool name, a package or the write mode is unclear, and when a tool you expected is missing.' It also implicitly tells the agent not to use it for network operations by stating 'Local only — no network, no permissions.' This is direct and actionable.

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