server_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it is a read-only debug helper with no side effects, returning specific fields. It explains exactly what is returned and notes reference to README for full list, leaving no ambiguity.

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 concise (5 sentences) and front-loaded with 'Debug helper. No params.' It efficiently communicates purpose, return values, and usage, with no wasted words.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description is complete. It lists all return fields and directs to README for the full effective_limits list, which is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no param details because none are needed, but the baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 it is a 'debug helper' that returns server information such as version, runtime detection, cwd, files_root, and effective_limits. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (http_inspect, http_read, http_request) which are HTTP-related, so the agent knows this is the only info/debug tool.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Use when a path is rejected unexpectedly, or to confirm which container/host the server is actually running in.' This gives clear context, though it doesn't mention when not to use the tool, which would be helpful but not essential.

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