server_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context annotations cannot: it is a local stdio server and the vaults root path is intentionally exposed, which tells an agent about the trust boundary and privacy expectations.

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 sentences, no filler. The enumeration is front-loaded immediately after the verb, and the second sentence adds only the non-obvious local/stdio exposure caveat.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description effectively serves as the return-value contract by listing every reported field, so an agent knows exactly what it will get. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret this tool is missing.

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 zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Report') plus an explicit enumeration of the resources returned: server version, Python/platform, git/ripgrep availability, git versioning state, vaults root path, and vault count. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_vaults (which enumerates vaults) or read_note (which reads content).

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 implied by the content: an agent can infer this is for diagnostics/environment introspection before attempting vault operations. However, it never states when to prefer it, nor does it mention siblings (e.g., use list_vaults when you need the vault names rather than a count). Adequate but with a clear gap.

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