get_server_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a safe read operation and usefully discloses the returned content (version, uptime, workspace, active processes), but says nothing about permissions, caching, or whether this is a live or snapshot query.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key resource front-loaded and the return payload enumerated immediately after the colon. Every token 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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, naming the returned fields (version, uptime, workspace, active processes) is exactly the right compensation. The only minor gap is the absence of any note on freshness or access requirements.

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 takes zero parameters, so by the rubric baseline this is 4. The description cannot add parameter semantics beyond the empty schema, and none are needed.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('server info') and enumerates the returned fields (version, uptime, workspace, active processes), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_environment, which an agent could reasonably confuse it with.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives; the closest sibling, get_environment, is never mentioned, nor is get_audit_log or list_files. Usage is only weakly implied by the read-only 'Get' framing, leaving the agent to guess the selection criteria.

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