get_server_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether this is a read-only operation, whether it hits the network, what subset of server state it reports, or how it behaves for multiple printers.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so it is structurally clean and front-loaded. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the definition lacks annotations, parameter documentation, and any usage context. For a tool exposed alongside 16 siblings, this is not enough for reliable selection or 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 single 'printer' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. With no explanation of what 'printer' selects (and it being optional with a 'default' value), the agent is left guessing about multi-instance targeting.

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 'Información del servidor Moonraker' essentially restates the tool name get_server_info, adding only the vendor qualifier 'Moonraker'. It states no verb or action and does nothing to distinguish the tool from siblings like get_printer_status or get_mcp_telemetry, which also return status-style information.

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 indication of when to call this tool, when not to, or how it relates to alternatives such as get_printer_status or get_mcp_telemetry. An agent has no basis for choosing between these information-returning tools.

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