Get server info

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returned data (counts, owner, members) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, read-only nature, required permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs. There is no unnecessary information, making it highly concise and structured.

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 informational tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the returned data (channel counts, role count, owner, members). It is mostly complete, though slightly lacking in specifying additional details like server name or ID.

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 covers the single parameter with a clear description (server name/id, optional with conditions). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and no additional value is provided.

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 the tool shows an overview with specific elements: channel counts, role count, owner, members. It distinguishes from siblings like list_channels or list_members by offering an aggregated summary. However, it doesn't fully specify all possible fields (e.g., server name, icon), preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_member or list_roles. The description implies it's for a quick overview, but lacks explicit context or exclusion criteria for effective tool selection by the AI agent.

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