get_server_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Report" implies a side-effect-free read, and the provider-routing detail (transcripts always use youtube-transcript-plus) adds real context, but there is no explicit confirmation of read-only safety, cost, or failure behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary output (version and provider) and the caveat about transcript tools last. No filler text.

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?

A zero-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema; the description explains the meaning of the returned fields (what innertube vs api implies, per-tool backend, transcript exception), which is exactly the context the schema's field names cannot supply.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4; there are no parameter semantics to clarify and the description rightly spends its space on the return payload instead.

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 specific verb ("Report") and enumerates the exact resources returned: server version, active provider per feature, and per-tool backend. That makes it unmistakably a diagnostic/meta tool versus the content-oriented siblings, though no sibling is named 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 for inspecting server/provider configuration — but there is no explicit statement of when to call it (e.g., to debug why a provider behaves a certain way) and no exclusions or alternatives offered.

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