Server Info

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only, touches no Outlook/OneNote/file state,' discloses the edge case for source checkouts/pre-stamp packages (null with a note), and explains the deployment verification behavior. This is unusually transparent.

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 information-dense without fluff: each sentence contributes a distinct piece of value—output contents, edge-case handling, safety guarantee, and a concrete usage recommendation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and maintains clear structure.

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 introspection tool, the description is complete: it covers what data is returned, when to call it, why ordering matters, and side-effect guarantees. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return structure in prose.

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 is nothing for the description to add beyond the empty input schema, which is fully covered. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the description focuses on outputs and behavior instead.

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: 'Identify this deployment' and enumerates specific outputs such as package name, build UTC/build id, install root, Python version, and registered tool names. This distinguishes it from sibling data-access tools (calendar, mail, files, OneDrive, tasks) by focusing on server/build introspection rather than domain content.

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: 'Call it FIRST when verifying that a redeployed build is the one answering' and explains the stale-server scenario. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the read-only, no-state statement implies it is not for Outlook/OneNote/file operations.

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