super_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what information is retrieved (version, config, LSP availability, instructions) and the tool's purpose (setup checks, installation learning). However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The description adds value by explaining the tool's scope but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core functionality, and the second explains usage. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's concise and well-structured for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose and when to use it.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and usage but lacks details on output format or behavioral constraints. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context on what to expect from the tool's response, but it's adequate for a simple 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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents 'compare_to' as an optional path for version comparison. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get SuperDB version info, environment configuration, LSP availability, and installation instructions.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resources (version info, config, LSP availability, instructions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'super_lsp_status' or 'super_help', which might overlap in functionality.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Call this to check setup status or learn how to install the optional LSP for enhanced query assistance.' This indicates when to use the tool (for setup checks or installation guidance). It doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to understand its primary use cases.

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