server_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the tool checks connectivity and returns server metadata. It also implies a failure mode by framing the purpose as verifying the connection, which goes beyond the bare annotation.

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 short, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the core action and return information, then adds the practical usage note. No filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers what it does, what it returns (version, host, replication status), and when to call it. There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently states the expected information, so nothing critical is 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior rather than inputs. Baseline 4 applies for no-parameter tools.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Cek koneksi dan ambil informasi server MongoDB' (check connection and get MongoDB server info). It also lists concrete returned fields (version, host, replication status), clearly distinguishing it from the collection- and document-level sibling tools.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Gunakan ini untuk memastikan koneksi berjalan' (use this to ensure the connection is running). It provides clear context for when to call the tool, though it does not spell out when not to use it or name alternatives.

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