Ultrabrain 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by specifying exactly what runtime information is included (e.g., data directory, active limits), which goes beyond the annotation traits. No contradictions are present.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Return runtime information') and lists the key content areas without unnecessary words. Every phrase adds value.

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 info tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a clear scope of returned data. It could be slightly more complete by explaining how response_format affects the output, but the schema already covers that, making this adequate overall.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter 'response_format', including an enum and description. The tool description itself does not add further parameter semantics, but the schema fully compensates, meeting the baseline expectation for high schema 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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as runtime information for the local Ultrabrain MCP server, enumerating the exact content (version, release date, capabilities, tool surface, data directory, active limits). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like status or metrics by detailing a comprehensive server introspection scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ultrabrain_status or ultrabrain_metrics. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without comparative direction.

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