get_server_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it explicitly declares 'Access level: read' (substituting for readOnlyHint), explains that the tool takes no arguments, and precisely defines the staleness semantics ('stale is true only when both commits are known and differ'). It also discloses why the check matters (Python does not hot-reload), which is behavioral context an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the rationale and the return summary in a logical order. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary — the parenthetical about editable installs and the '(Hallazgo 7)' internal reference add length without adding decision-relevant information — but nothing is outright wasted.

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, read-only introspection tool with an output schema present, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it reports, that it is safe to call, and how to interpret the one non-obvious field. The return fields are also restated, which is redundant against the output schema but harmless and not incomplete.

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 is parameterless, so per the baseline this dimension scores 4. The description correctly reinforces that there is nothing to supply and adds no misleading parameter claims.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Report this running server process's version/commit') plus a second, clearly-scoped purpose (detecting stale on-disk code). It is unmistakably distinct from every sibling tool, which all deal with rules, lessons, proposals, or projects. An agent can identify this as the process-introspection tool without opening the schema.

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?

It establishes the triggering context well: the tool exists to reveal the otherwise-invisible condition where an editable install was git-pulled without a server restart, and the concrete symptom it addresses ('keeps serving the old code with no other visible sign'). That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating exclusions or alternatives (none of the siblings are related, so none are needed), keeping it at a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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