skypilot_api_info

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes safety, a low bar. The description usefully adds that the response covers health, version, commit, and authentication details. It stops short of describing whether authentication details imply credential exposure or what format is returned, though the output schema covers the shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; every listed field adds value for the caller.

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?

Complete for a simple read-only introspection call: no params, annotations carry safety, and an output schema documents return shape. The only omitted element is differentiation from sibling status tools.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, consistent with 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SkyPilot API server information') with an enumerated field list, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling skypilot_api_status, leaving ambiguity about which to choose.

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?

Usage context is implied by the read-only, no-argument nature of the call, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as skypilot_api_status or skypilot_api_server_logs.

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