get_server_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. '반환합니다' implies a read-only operation, and the tool is simple, but the description does not explicitly confirm there are no side effects or disclose anything about response shape or availability. It is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first states what the tool returns, and the second gives the trigger condition. Both sentences add value and the key information is front-loaded.

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 server-info tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is returned and when to invoke it. A more detailed response format would improve completeness, but the tool's simplicity makes the current description adequate.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter details needed, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's output and use case rather than filling unnecessary schema gaps.

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 states a specific verb ('반환합니다') and resource ('BuyKing MCP 서버의 버전 정보와 기능 목록'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also differentiates from the sibling search tool by focusing on server info rather than semantic search.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call the tool: when the user asks about MCP version or server status. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tool's purpose is distinct enough that no additional routing guidance is necessary.

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