linkedin_server_info

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that version is a hand-maintained label while build.code.commit is measured and frozen at import, distinguishes between stale and current processes, explains how to compare against git rev-parse HEAD, and covers the dirty flag and started_at field. This goes well beyond what annotations would provide and gives the agent complete behavioral expectations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then dives into detailed interpretation of version/build fields. It is well-structured with a clear flow, but it is somewhat verbose, especially the code block and extended explanation of staleness. Every sentence adds value, so it is not padded, but it could be tightened without losing essential meaning.

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 is extraordinarily complete for a no-parameter tool. It explains the meaning of each output field (version, build.code.commit, dirty, started_at), how to interpret them together, and even provides a practical procedure (git rev-parse HEAD) for diagnosing stale servers. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 is trivially complete (100% coverage). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no parameter detail (none is needed). No deduction is warranted.

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 opens with "Describe this server: what it can do, what it deliberately cannot," a specific verb/resource pair that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like linkedin_auth_status or linkedin_session_info. It states the exact scope (server capabilities, read-only boundary, rate settings) and the primary output (version and build information). No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use it ("Useful for confirming the read-only boundary and the rate settings without reading the source"). It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the context of the sibling list makes the intended use clear. A 5 would require an explicit comparison to alternatives, which is missing.

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