get_server_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it adequately conveys that this is a read-only informational call by saying 'Return information'. It goes beyond a simple metadata listing by explaining the diagnostic nuance that it can distinguish disabled vs missing web research tools, which is behavioral context not available in the 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?

The description is compact, front-loads the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. The second sentence expands the return contents and adds a distinctive diagnostic detail without redundancy.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and a clear description of the return scope, nothing important is missing. The description even provides the most valuable practical context: using it to detect disabled vs missing web research tools.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on return value rather than input.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return information about this MCP server', and immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_system_info and get_gpu_info by clarifying the subject is the MCP server itself. It further specifies meaningful contents (version, transport protocol, configuration), so there is no ambiguity about 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 gives a clear diagnostic use case: checking whether web research tools are available, and notes this is the only way to distinguish a disabled tool from a missing one. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but with sibling tools being unrelated (git, files, system hardware), no exclusion is really needed.

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