get_server_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by specifying what information is returned. It discloses the return format ('Server information including version, implementation type, and available features'), though it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear returns section. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without any redundant or unnecessary content.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, and with an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return value structure. The description covers all essential aspects for this straightforward informational tool.

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 coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on what the tool returns.

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 specific action ('Get information') and resource ('this MCP server'), with explicit details about what information is retrieved ('version, implementation, and capabilities'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search/fetch tools by focusing on server metadata rather than web operations.

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 usage for retrieving server metadata, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison with other tools that might provide similar information.

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