server_info

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states that the tool returns configuration and capabilities. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or side effects. Given the lack of annotations, the description is insufficient to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 absence of parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It indicates what the tool returns, though it could be more precise about the specific configuration details. However, with the output schema available, the agent can infer the return structure.

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 no parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% description coverage. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description is adequate for the parameter context.

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 that the tool returns the current configuration and capabilities of the Codex image generation MCP. The verb '返回' (return) and resource '当前配置和能力' are specific, and the tool is distinctly different from sibling tools which perform image generation/editing.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools (image generation/editing) implies that this tool is for querying server info, so the usage is somewhat implied but not explicitly guided.

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