Detected server and resources

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

Annotations already mark it read-only; the description adds useful behavioral detail by listing what is detected (server location, build, config, resources root, resources) and by noting that it re-detects on every call, implying fresh state rather than a cached result. It does not cover return formatting or failure modes, but those are secondary for a read-only discovery tool.

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 and contains no filler, with the key output scope listed ahead of the 're-detects' behavior. The phrasing is slightly awkward as a sentence fragment, but it remains efficient and 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 no-required-args read-only detection tool, the description lists the main return content and refresh behavior, which is largely sufficient. It is incomplete in not differentiating from sibling resource/status tools or noting the response shape/error conditions, but these are not severe gaps given the low complexity.

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 schema covers both optional parameters with descriptions (config override and serverDir override), so the description does not need to repeat parameter-level details. It adds no extra semantic nuance beyond the schema, keeping this at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a read-only detection operation: it reports where the Open77 server for the current session is located, plus its build, config, resources root, and contained resources. The verb is only implicit ('re-detects'), and it does not contrast with siblings like open77_resources or open77_server_status, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It provides clear context that this is the tool to call when you need the detected server's location and configuration, including the fact that it is bound to 'this session'. It does not state when to prefer an alternative such as open77_server_status or open77_resources, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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