get_server_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information (implying read-only behavior) and lists examples of what information is included (service status, version). However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured or unstructured data, or has any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that states the purpose and provides examples of what information is included. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from examples, it's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate coverage of what the tool does. It explains the purpose and gives examples of returned information. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context (like authentication requirements or response format) to be fully complete. The description is minimally viable but has clear gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully documented). With no parameters to explain, the description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters. It focuses on what information is retrieved rather than how to call the tool, which is correct for a parameterless tool. The baseline for zero parameters with high schema coverage is 4.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as '获取搜索服务器信息，包括服务状态、版本等' (Get search server information, including service status, version, etc.), which specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('搜索服务器信息' - search server information). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'web_search' by focusing on server metadata rather than performing searches. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential other server-related tools beyond the single sibling.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'web_search' or explain that this is for server diagnostics while 'web_search' is for content retrieval. There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or use cases beyond the basic purpose statement.

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