server_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool returns information but does not disclose whether it is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, or side effects. While it is likely a safe read, the lack of explicit disclosure and absence of annotations leaves this gap.

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 sentence that directly states the core information returned. Zero waste, perfectly front-loaded, and appropriately sized for a parameterless tool.

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?

The description lists the key content areas (model, parameter constraints, routing, security boundaries), which is sufficient for a simple info tool. An output schema exists to document the return structure, so the description does not need to explain return values. The only gap is lack of explicit usage context, but given the simplicity, it is nearly 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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none. Baseline 4 applies as the description is not compromised by missing parameter details.

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 (返回/return) and resource (当前 Image2 模型、参数约束、路由和安全边界), making the purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools that perform editing or generation actions, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The resource is distinct enough that an agent can infer the purpose without opening the schema.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling action tools. The description only states what information is returned, but does not give context on when an agent should call it (e.g., before editing/generating to check constraints). Usage is implicitly obvious but not explicitly stated.

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