Get Server Info

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explicitly stating the call is read-only, requires no deck, touches no file, and returns a specific set of server-related fields. This fully discloses the behavior and scope of the tool without contradicting 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?

The description is dense but every clause earns its place: it front-loads the core purpose, then the detailed list of reported fields, then the usage distinction and the sibling pointer. No redundant or filler content is present.

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?

Despite the long list of reported fields, the description fully captures purpose, usage constraints, read-only behavior, scope, and the sibling relationship. With an output schema present, no return-value documentation is needed from the description, and nothing important is left out for an agent to call or interpret the tool correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the default baseline is 4. The description correctly describes the fixed output scope, which is all an agent needs to know about this parameterless tool.

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 and resource: 'Report the KitchenSink4PPT server build' and then enumerates exactly what is covered. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it is 'the only tool that answers WHAT you are connected to' and that diagnose covers the environment.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: it 'needs no deck and touches no file,' making it appropriate for a direct server-info query. It also names the relevant alternative, diagnose, and assigns it a different responsibility, so the agent has clear routing guidance.

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