describe_server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: it bundles three data categories into one call and explicitly declares what it does NOT return (the MCP tool list, since the protocol advertises it). It stops short of describing the depth or format of 'recent crawl jobs'.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded and non-redundant: purpose first, then the orient-yourself directive, then a deliberate scope exclusion. No 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it names the three payload categories adequately. The only gap is granularity — how many 'recent' jobs, or what fields identity/sites include — but for a zero-param orientation tool this is close to complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. With no arguments to document, there is nothing further the description could add on this dimension.

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?

States a specific verb and enumerates the resource: 'Returns server identity, configured sites, and recent crawl jobs in one call.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming list_sites and get_job_status as the calls it replaces.

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?

Gives an explicit directive ('Call this first to orient yourself') and explains the condition under which it is preferable: it consolidates list_sites plus several get_job_status calls. That is a clear when-to-use with named alternatives.

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