get_runtime_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it explicitly states what is NOT included (credentials, paths, identities, environment values) and warns that the returned configuration does not guarantee live authentication, which is a non-obvious behavioral caveat.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what it returns, then a compact list of what it excludes, then a usage caveat. No filler. Slightly dense but each clause carries distinct value.

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?

Given no parameters, an output schema exists (so return format needn't be described), and annotations cover safety, the description is nearly complete. It covers scope, exclusions, and a critical caveat about authentication. It could be slightly richer about execution mode semantics, but it is sufficient 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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly implies this is a parameterless inspection tool, and no parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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 (inspect) and enumerates the exact resources returned: server/package versions, tool count, execution mode, workflow support, unlock allowance. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_account_health and get_session_status, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives in the purpose sentence itself.

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?

It gives a clear usage context through the negative constraint: 'without starting a browser' and clarifies the difference from get_account_health ('Configuration does not prove live X authentication; use get_account_health and a bounded read for that'). This is a strong when-not and alternative pointer, though it doesn't exhaustively cover when-not to use it vs other info tools.

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