Get Server Info

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it requires no browser, opens no page, leaks no path or username, and reads live registry state rather than reporting product-level generalities. These are exactly the kind of side-effect and privacy disclosures an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: the first enumerates the full report scope, the second clarifies data freshness and provenance, and the third states safety/privacy implications. Although the first sentence is long, it is information-dense and well structured rather than padded.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and only safety annotations, the description carries full responsibility for making the tool callable. It enumerates all return categories, clarifies that counts describe the live connected process, and reassures about side-effect and privacy boundaries. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The provided baseline of 4 applies, and the description instead spends its effort on return-content and behavioral detail, which is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report what this server is and what it is running.' It then enumerates a comprehensive, unique scope—product and package names, version, repo, tool surface, test figures, Python, platform—that clearly separates it from browser-action and workflow siblings. Even without naming other tools, the content makes the tool's distinct purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear usage context: it is safe for bug reports because it 'needs no browser, opens no page, and reveals no path or user name.' It also clarifies that counts are live from the connected process, preventing misinterpretation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, stopping short of full when/when-not guidance.

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