get_server_info

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses that request limits exist and that native ROOT availability depends on a separate installation. It does not describe the shape of the returned capability data, which is the main remaining gap given there is no output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with the payload enumeration front-loaded and the sequencing advice second. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded or restated from the title.

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 output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does at a high level by naming mode, capabilities, resources, and limits. A short note on the response format or whether limits are static or per-session would close the remaining gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the call needs no arguments to enumerate server state.

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?

States a specific verb (Discover) plus the concrete payload: ROOT analysis mode, capabilities, accessible named resources, and request limits. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_files or export_data, which operate on data rather than server configuration, though it never names a sibling it is not.

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?

'Use before choosing analysis tools' gives explicit ordering guidance that an agent can act on when planning a session. The prerequisite note about native ROOT requiring a separate installation is genuinely useful gating information, but there are no when-not-to-use conditions or named alternative discovery tools.

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