Nacos server info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds context by specifying exactly what information is reported (version, endpoints, auth mode), which goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's output nature.

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 compact—two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the specific data points reported and the usage guidance. Every word adds value.

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 diagnostic tool without an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool does, what details it reports, and when to use it. Nothing essential 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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters since none exist.

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 clearly states the tool reports how the server is connected to Nacos, enumerating the specific details (version, endpoints, context path, auth mode). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on namespaces or configs, making the intent unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool first when troubleshooting connectivity or version compatibility, giving a clear when-to-use directive. While it doesn't name alternatives, the priority and scenario are specific enough to guide selection.

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