Which build this server answers for

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety behavior. It adds useful context about what kind of information is returned (CDN cache, embedded snapshot, newest published build, package version). However, it does not disclose output format, potential staleness, or whether the values are computed live, which would add extra transparency 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 compact sentence that lists the key output areas without filler. Every clause adds information about what the tool reports, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool, the description covers the main content areas an agent needs to set expectations. There is no output schema, but the listed items provide a reasonable sketch of the response. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating that it returns this information, but the overall context is sufficient for a simple call.

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 the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description instead clarifies the meaning of the tool's output by listing the fields of build data it exposes, which is helpful given there is no output schema.

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 identifies the resource as build information and enumerates its contents: index build, provenance, newest published build, and package version. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves', but the title 'Which build this server answers for' and the noun-phrase description make the purpose understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like server_status, though its content focus is distinct.

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 call this tool versus alternatives such as open77_server_status or open77_changes. The zero-parameter signature implies a simple read-only lookup, but the description never states the intended use case or conditions for selection.

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