Server Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about the server being API-only and the specific runtime fields returned, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response behavior or potential errors. It is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction exists.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists the specific data returned. There is no filler or redundant phrasing, and every part of the sentence adds meaningful information.

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 simple read-only informational tool with strong annotations and a self-explanatory schema, the description covers the essential purpose and output contents. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not clarify how response_format changes the response, but no output schema exists and the description names the key fields, which is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 description provides no information about the 'caller' or 'response_format' parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%. The input schema's enums and default value are self-documenting, which mitigates the gap, but the description itself makes no attempt to compensate for the low coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Return runtime information') and resource ('API-only Cross Review MCP server'), and enumerates the returned items: version, data directory, and active security mode. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like runtime_capabilities, which could plausibly overlap.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as runtime_capabilities or session_*. The description implies a general informational purpose but does not state use cases, exclusions, or conditions under which a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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