server_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the important trait that the operation is read-only and enumerates the categories of system data exposed. However, it does not explain the meaning or effect of the host parameter, whether remote hosts are supported, or any permission/auth requirements.

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 and front-loaded: one sentence enumerates the returned data, followed by a two-word safety note. Every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be in the description, and the listed data categories give a good sense of scope. However, the undocumented 'host' parameter is a meaningful gap for correct invocation, and there is no usage guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the single 'host' parameter has no description in the schema. The tool description never mentions the host parameter at all, so an agent cannot infer whether it targets the local server or a remote one.

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?

States a clear verb and resource ('Show the system') and enumerates the specific system data returned: OS, kernel, uptime, CPU, memory, disks, and network. It is more specific than a bare title, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as server_processes or docker_disk_usage.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual hint is 'Read only,' which describes safety rather than usage selection.

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