client_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 correctly indicates this is a read operation returning specific fields. No side effects or permissions are mentioned, but the behavior is obvious for a getter. A higher score would require explicit statements about safety or idempotency.

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 extremely concise: two short paragraphs with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds a detail about what is captured. The argument description is inline and minimal.

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 tool's simplicity, the description is complete. It specifies exactly what information is returned, and since an output schema exists, it does not need to detail return values. All relevant context is provided.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by explaining that the 'verbose' parameter is 'Unused parameter for compatibility,' which aids agent understanding beyond the schema itself. The description does not duplicate the schema but provides context.

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: 'Get information about the MCP client/agent' and specifies what it captures (agent name, version, prompt prefix). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which deal with permissions, categories, projects, etc.

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?

While the description implicitly suggests when to use it (when client info is needed), it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools. Since no siblings are similar, the lack of explicit alternatives is not critical, but usage context is only implied.

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