whistle_server_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the returned categories (port, version, network) and the verb '获取/get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, required server state, or response format. Some behavioral context is present but not fully developed.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler or redundant information. It is maximally concise while communicating the core purpose.

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 parameterless info tool, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks differentiation from whistle_status and does not describe what the returned data looks like. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about return content or scope would improve completeness.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivial. Per the rubric, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4; the description does not need to add parameter-level details.

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 a 'get' operation on Whistle server information, enumerating port, version, and network details. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool whistle_status, which could overlap in purpose.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description only says what the tool does, not when to use it over alternatives such as whistle_status or other related tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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