server_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that selftest 'round-trips a real document through both Inkscape and the pure-Python path,' revealing a meaningful dependency and behavior beyond the raw operation names. It implies a non-mutating health check, though it never explicitly states 'read-only' or describes potential side effects.

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?

Two compact sentences plus a short value list, all front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail; every sentence earns its place.

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 parameter-light diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers what operations exist, the notable selftest behavior, and when to run the tool. It does not detail the return format of each operation, but the self-descriptive operation names and health-check framing make the tool usable without that.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, but the description adds the valid operation values, which the schema refers back to the tool summary for. It also clarifies the selftest's Inkscape/pure-Python round-trip, which helps the agent understand what require_inkscape controls.

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 opens with 'Server health and self-check' and enumerates specific operations (status, version, config, diagnostics, selftest, help), making the tool's purpose concrete and distinct from sibling object/document/export tools. An agent can immediately tell this is a diagnostic server tool, not a transformation or export tool.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Run this FIRST when anything behaves oddly.' It does not enumerate exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool is a server-diagnostic tool, so the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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