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, covering the safety profile. The description adds concrete details about what information is exposed, but it does not mention any access constraints, potential delays, or what 'source availability' specifically entails beyond the 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?

The description is a single efficient sentence that directly lists the tool's four key output areas with no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool and what to expect from it. The listed items are sufficient for a server-info operation.

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, so the schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and no parameter-related information is missing.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource (server info) with concrete attributes: version, license, source availability, and connection status. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool get_instance_info, which plausibly overlaps in purpose.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_instance_info. Since this is a simple zero-parameter info tool, the lack of exclusions is less critical, but the dimension explicitly asks for usage context and none is provided.

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