server_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Return ... status information' clearly implies a non-mutating read, and the listed return fields add useful shape, but there is no disclosure of permissions, cost, or side-effect profile beyond that implication.

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?

Two short blocks, purpose front-loaded, nothing padded. The 'Returns' list is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is brief and does not bloat the definition.

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 introspection tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool is and roughly what comes back. Since the output schema already defines return values, the enumerated fields are a mild duplication rather than a gap; nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 4 baseline applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter semantics that do not exist.

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 and resource: 'Return server capabilities and status information.' It is unambiguous, though it does not differentiate itself from any sibling — which is acceptable here since no sibling tool (diagram CRUD, navigation, metrics) overlaps with server introspection.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Usage is strongly implied by the name and the resource being described (inspect the server before/without operating on diagrams), but the description leaves that inference to the agent.

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