aga_server_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists what information is retrieved without detailing aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly communicates what the tool does in a structured manner, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity of retrieving multiple types of server information (e.g., public keys, portal state) and the lack of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, potential errors, or how the retrieved data is structured, leaving the agent with incomplete context for proper use.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the input schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately avoids mentioning any, earning a high baseline score for not introducing confusion or redundancy.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('AGA server info, public keys, portal state, and framework alignment'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_server_info' tool, which appears to serve a similar general purpose, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a sibling tool named 'get_server_info' that likely overlaps in functionality, the absence of any differentiation or context for choosing between them is a significant gap, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.

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