Server info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by scoping what is exposed (mode, folders, Docker presence) and explicitly reassuring 'Contains no secrets'. It doesn't discuss auth needs or rate limits, but for a zero-arg read tool that's minor.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the primary subject ('this server's name, version, mode'), with the enumerated fields and the no-secrets note following efficiently. No filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still summarizes them usefully; combined with the read-only annotations that is enough to call the tool correctly. The only gap is the absence of guidance on where this fits relative to the docker_* and lab_* siblings.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 gives a specific verb ('Show') plus a precise enumeration of the returned resource: server name, version, mode (read/lab/full), areas, labs and data folders, and Docker presence. That content makes it clearly distinct from docker_info, check_requirements, and list_labs, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the orientation/discovery call before other operations, but the description states no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no alternative tool to prefer in any scenario.

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