Get TacticalRMM Server Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by naming the exact API endpoints (/core/version/ and /core/dashinfo/), giving the agent more context about what data is returned. It does not fully detail the dashboard info fields, but given the strong annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Read') and resource, then specifies the endpoints. Zero wasted words and highly scannable.

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?

For a simple, read-only, server-info tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description plus the schema fully cover what an agent needs: purpose, endpoints, and response format choice. No significant gaps.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter response_format, including its enum values and default. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.

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 reads TacticalRMM server version and dashboard information from specific endpoints. The verb 'Read' plus the resource and endpoint paths make the purpose unambiguous, and it is distinct from all sibling tools that focus on clients, agents, sites, etc.

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 when to use this tool: when server-level version or dashboard info is needed. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly scoped to other resources (clients, agents, tasks, etc.), so the context is clear enough. No misleading guidance.

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