server_properties_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies read-only, but it does not explicitly state there are no side effects, rate limits, or error behaviors (e.g., file missing). For a simple getter this is acceptable but not thorough.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and target. No waste.

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 no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential behavior. Could mention return format explicitly, but 'key-value pairs' implies it. Adequate.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema is empty. The description adds value by stating that it reads all key-value pairs, which clarifies the output semantics (a map of key-value pairs). Baseline 4 for 0-param tools.

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 'Read all key-value pairs from server.properties' uses a specific verb (read) and resource (server.properties) with a clear scope (all key-value pairs). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like server_properties_set (write) and server_status (server state), so an agent can select it correctly without ambiguity.

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?

The description states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives mirror. No mention of conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. It is implied by its name, but the rubric expects explicit usage guidance.

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