Server and instance version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it explains graceful degradation (instance_version reports why instead of failing when the instance is unreachable) and the flavor distinction an agent must interpret. It doesn't discuss auth requirements or output shape, but little else is missing.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: what is returned, why it matters, what happens on failure, and where to go for auth. Information is front-loaded on the return values, with conditional routing after.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so (server name/version, instance URL/version, flavor). It also covers the failure mode, which an agent needs in order to interpret a degraded result.

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 the baseline applies and no parameter explanation is needed or expected. The description correctly never dwells on inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource set: reports server name/version, instance URL/version, and the Forgejo-vs-Gitea flavor. An agent can tell immediately that this is a diagnostic/identity tool distinct from data-reading siblings like get_repo or whoami.

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?

Gives an explicit use case (checking whether version-dependent tools will work) and names the concrete dependencies: cancel_workflow_run needs Forgejo 16+, rerun_workflow needs Forgejo 17+. It also routes the agent elsewhere for a different question by naming whoami for token checks.

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