mcp_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it requires no session, no probe and no target, and it explains the compact-mode interaction that can hide tools. That is genuine value, though it does not describe return format or cost.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the identity payload before the 'no prerequisites' clause and the usage trigger. Every clause carries distinct information (what is returned, what is not needed, when to call it) with no 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?

No output schema exists, so the description is right to enumerate the returned fields, and it does so fairly exhaustively. For a single-optional-param read-only introspection tool this is close to complete; it omits nothing an agent needs to call it correctly, though return shape nuance (ordering, formats) is unstated.

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?

Only one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the debug-session name and its omission default. The description's 'Needs NO debug session' adds a mild hint about the optional nature but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it 'identifies THIS running stm32-gdb-mcp server' and then enumerates the exact facts returned (release version, git commit, package/install dir, compact mode state, tool counts). An agent immediately knows what it gets. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from near-neighbors like self_check or tool_help.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('call it the moment a tool you expect is missing or behaves like an older build') and frames the alternative to avoid ('guessing which checkout the client actually launched'). It also pre-clears prerequisites ('Needs NO debug session, NO probe and NO target'). It stops short of naming a sibling it should be preferred over, so no exclusion clause.

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