server_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: the repository allowlist narrows both diagnostics and discovery scope, credentials are never returned, the API version is fixed by configuration, and product build is reported only when the server supplies it. Auth requirements and error behavior are still unstated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the two primary modes before the scoping and security caveats. Every sentence carries information; the allowlist sentence is slightly dense but not redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value expectations — and it does, by stating credentials are never returned and build is conditional. With three optional params and full annotation coverage, only auth/permission prerequisites are missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 67%: top and continuationToken carry their own descriptions, while action has only an enum with no explanation. The description's two modes implicitly explain what action=get vs list_projects do, but it adds no format or pagination detail, so this sits at the baseline.

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 names two concrete operations — connectivity/safe-configuration diagnostics and discovery of accessible projects — which maps cleanly onto the get/list_projects enum. It is clearly a server-level tool, distinct in domain from the repo_* siblings, though it never names or contrasts an alternative explicitly.

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 real trigger condition: use discovery 'without a configured default project', and use diagnostics to check connectivity/safe configuration. No exclusions or named alternatives are offered, so it stops short of a 5.

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