get_server_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that only retrieval occurs, that connection settings are password-masked, and that extension availability is checked. It stops short of stating permission requirements or behavior when the server is unreachable (e.g., error vs. partial result), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Bracketed section headers front-load purpose, functionality, use cases, and prohibitions in a scannable order with no filler sentences. It is somewhat longer than strictly necessary for a zero-argument status tool, but every section carries routing or scoping 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 no-parameter read-only status tool, the description covers what it returns, when to call it, and when not to, and an output schema exists to carry return-value detail. An agent has everything needed 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies no inputs are needed and adds nothing misleading about arguments.

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 ("Check basic information and connection status of PostgreSQL server") and enumerates exactly what it retrieves: version, connection settings, accessibility, extension install status. That scope is clearly distinct from siblings like get_postgresql_config, get_database_stats, or get_active_connections.

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?

Provides explicit trigger phrases ("server info", "PostgreSQL status", "connection check"), contextual triggers (preliminary check before monitoring tools), and a 'Strictly Prohibited' list that routes performance stats, table data, and config changes to the correct sibling tools.

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