server_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds an important safety-related trait: it does not return the full API key, which is a key transparency point. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or mention other behavioral traits like authentication requirements.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and to the point. It conveys the core purpose and a key safety exclusion without any redundant content.

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 tool with an output schema present, the description addresses the primary need (what is returned and what is not) and is complete for its simple scope. The presence of an output schema covers detailed return fields, so further description is unnecessary.

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 the input schema fully covers them. The description adds no parameter specifics, which is unnecessary here. The baseline of 4 for no parameters is appropriate.

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 function: it returns the current MetaRouter MCP security runtime configuration, and explicitly notes what it does not return (full API key). This distinguishes it from the image-related sibling tools and provides a specific verb-resource pair.

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?

There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool or when to avoid it. The sibling tools are all image-generation/edit tools, which implies server_info is for server-level queries, but the description does not say 'use when you need server configuration' or provide any exclusions.

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