get_server_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safe read-only nature, and the description adds a key behavioral constraint: the ADMIN permission requirement. It also specifies what kind of information will be returned, which goes beyond the annotation. No mention of rate limits or error behavior, but for a simple zero-parameter getter this is sufficient.

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 highly concise at two short sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the access requirement as a clear second sentence. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition or filler.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: what it returns, the access level required, and the resource domain. The rich sibling list does not create ambiguity because the description is specific, and the output schema handles return-value details.

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, and the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-related details since there are none to document.

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 ('Get') and identifies the target resource ('Komga build and runtime information'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_server_settings or get_server_claim_status. It states exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 provides clear context by specifying 'Requires ADMIN', which tells the agent under what conditions the tool should be invoked. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the resource is specific enough to avoid confusion with most siblings.

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