server_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explicitly lists what is returned (version, tools, invariants) and implies a read-only, non-mutating operation. It is transparent about the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly state 'no side effects'.

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, front-loaded sentence that packs all necessary information without waste. It is concise and well-structured, using a colon to introduce the key return items.

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 zero-parameter complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It lists the key return categories (version, tools, invariants) and communicates the tool's role as a handshake, which suffices for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 there is nothing to explain. The description adds value by describing the response contents, which is the only relevant semantic information. It meets the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 what the tool does: returns server version, registered tools, and invariants for a handshake. It uses specific nouns and is distinct from all sibling tools, which are about profiles, assets, applications, etc.

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 implies this is a handshake to be used at the start of a client conversation, and it mentions that the client must respect the invariants. This gives clear context for when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or say when not to use it.

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