server_info

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

Despite no annotations, the description explains important behavioral traits: the meaning of active_host (reflects default_host) and that a warning field appears in production mode. It does not mention if it's read-only, but this is implied.

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 concise (two paragraphs) with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the additional details are relevant and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description covers key behaviors and field meanings. It could elaborate on 'configuration locations' but is still fairly complete.

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 schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the behavior of the active_host field and the warning condition, which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 returns server version, active host, and configuration locations. It uses specific verbs and resource names, and is distinct from sibling tools which are auction actions.

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 vs siblings, but its unique purpose as a server info tool is clear. No alternatives are mentioned, but the context signals indicate it is a standalone info endpoint.

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