server_info

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-open-world operation. The description adds meaningful operational context about why checking server identity matters before writes, though it does not discuss auth, rate limits, or status interpretation.

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 two tight sentences: first it states what identity fields are returned, then it explains the safe usage pattern. Nothing is wasted and the return-value context is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is a simple zero-argument server identity query with an output schema available, so return values need not be exhaustively described. The annotations cover safety semantics, and the description adds the key pre-write split-store rationale, making it complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

This tool takes zero input parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The schema is empty and the description appropriately does not invent input-parameter guidance.

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 identifies the resource as this server's DB identity and lists the concrete fields it reports. It is specific enough to distinguish this from broader host or build tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: compare this server's identity against the other server's health endpoint before writing, to catch split-store divergence. The guidance is actionable but does not state when not to use the tool or name a specific MCP sibling.

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