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 of disclosing behavioral traits. While the verb 'Get' suggests a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, whether special permissions are required, or any other side-effect information. It only lists the content returned, leaving the safety profile ambiguous.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then listing the returned content categories. Every word contributes to understanding the tool, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the lack of parameters, annotations, and output schema, the description provides a reasonably complete picture by enumerating the types of information returned. It could improve by explicitly addressing read-only guarantees or auth requirements, but the simplicity of the tool reduces the need for additional detail.

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, and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to add beyond the baseline. The description appropriately does not mention any parameters, and the context signals confirm 100% schema coverage by default.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Get Gerrit server configuration info.' It further specifies the scope by enumerating capabilities, authentication methods, change settings, download schemes, and plugin info, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_server_version that focus solely on version.

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 implies usage when server configuration details are needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. For example, it could have noted that get_server_version is the right tool for just the version. Thus, it provides only implied guidance, not explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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