server_info

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

No annotations are provided, leaving the full disclosure burden to the description. While it indicates a read-style 'Get' operation, it omits key behavioral details like required permissions, rate limits, or whether the network statistics are real-time/cumulative. There is no contradiction with the structured data.

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 a single, tight sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then explains the scope options. No significant waste is present.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the basics. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not mention what the return data includes or any prerequisites, leaving some gaps for correct invocation.

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 single parameter 'scope' has full schema coverage including an enum and a detailed description. The description restates the same meanings without adding new syntax, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Get TeamSpeak server information', giving a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from nearby siblings like server_diagnose and server_list by specifying it returns general server data with scope options, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings.

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 implied through the scope descriptions ('Use scope overview for general server details, connection for network/bandwidth statistics'), but the tool does not state when it should be used versus alternatives such as server_diagnose or server_list, nor does it offer exclusions.

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