inspect_server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying it returns an overview of server state rather than detailed entries or full access. It also implies no side effects through 'overview' and by directing full access to connect, which is consistent with the annotations.

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 critical 'USE WHEN' guidance, then gives concrete examples and next-step routing. Every section earns its place and there is no redundant 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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotation, the description fully covers what it returns, when to use it, and how to proceed for more detailed needs. Nothing required for correct invocation 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 there is nothing to explain beyond the schema. Baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description's examples correctly show calls with no arguments, reinforcing the schema's 100% 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?

Description states a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('server') and enumerates the scope: health, settings, cron jobs, and log statistics. It also differentiates from read_logs by positioning itself as an overview rather than detailed log access.

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 'USE WHEN' directive explicitly tells an agent when to invoke this tool, reinforced by concrete example queries. The NEXT STEPS section names alternatives (read_logs, connect) and the conditions under which they are preferable, making routing unambiguous.

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