get-server-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 states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what specific server configuration information is returned, how it's structured, or any behavioral context. For a tool in a set with many siblings, more completeness is needed to guide effective use.

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% coverage, describing it as a 'Dummy parameter for no-parameter tools'. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since the schema fully documents the parameter, and the tool effectively has 0 functional parameters. Baseline is 3, but the dummy nature justifies a higher score for clarity.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'information about the Opik server configuration', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-metrics' or 'get-opik-tracing-info', which also retrieve server-related information, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-metrics' and 'get-opik-tracing-info' that might retrieve overlapping or related server data, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for tool selection.

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