get_server_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the read-only nature ('Return') and specifies the fields returned, but does not disclose potential error conditions, data freshness, or whether any configuration values may be null. However, for a simple getter, the behavior is adequately conveyed.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Return') and then lists the details. No redundant information.

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 parameterless getter, the description covers the key output fields. It lacks an output schema but compensates by enumerating the returned properties. It doesn't mention response format or potential errors, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the empty schema is fully covered.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource (currently active server configuration) and lists the exact fields (location, timezone, calculation method, madhab, iqama offsets). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prayer_times or set_iqama_offset.

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 the tool is for reading the server's current configuration but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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