get_server_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable context about release behavior: the database is re-released daily as calendar-tagged GitHub releases, while server code uses semver on npm. This goes beyond a simple label and helps set expectations, though it doesn't explicitly state the tool is read-only.

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 appropriately sized: it starts with a clear heading phrase, lists content areas, explains release mechanics with examples, and ends with concrete use cases. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical.

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 no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what information is available, how releases are versioned, and when to call it. No critical gaps are apparent.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. It correctly focuses on the informational content returned.

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 defines the tool as providing server information: running version, changelog entry, data freshness, and release mechanics. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on server-level info rather than schema objects or changes.

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 explicitly lists when to call the tool: 'what version is this?', 'what's new in the latest Graph Atlas release?', or to check data currency. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, the usage triggers are clear and sufficient.

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