About This Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds no new behavioral context beyond restating that it 'Returns information.' It does not disclose what information is returned, any response format, or potential limitations. The description provides minimal value beyond the annotations.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Returns.' There is no redundant fluff or repetition of the title; every word earns its place.

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), the description is minimally viable but leaves ambiguity about what 'information' means. The agent may not know if it returns server version, capabilities, or status. With sibling tools and a read-only hint, a bit more detail would increase completeness, but it is not severely lacking.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. It correctly suggests a call without arguments, though it could optionally hint at return value semantics.

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 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource ('information about this iCloud MCP server'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on notes, messages, emails, etc. It is unambiguous and tells the agent exactly what the tool does.

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 implies the tool is used to get server-level information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. Sibling tools like check-auth-status or set-mode exist, but no usage guidance or comparison is provided.

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