ftrack_query_server_information

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

The description implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and lists the returned information (version, configuration). However, with no annotations, it does not disclose potential caveats such as required permissions, whether configuration includes sensitive data, or any operational side effects.

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 is front-loaded and free of redundancy. It efficiently communicates the operation and expected content with no wasted words.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (0 params, no output schema), the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. It could specify the exact response format or mention any prerequisites, but that is not critical for this basic info retrieval.

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 full coverage (100%). The description adds no parameter syntax details, but the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adequately indicates what the tool returns.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('ftrack server information') and adds specifics ('version and configuration'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like ftrack_query or ftrack_query_schemas by focusing on server metadata.

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 case is implicitly clear for retrieving server info, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other query/info siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions. It relies on the tool's name and general context.

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