server_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses the 30-second TTL caching, mtime-based bypass, up-to-30-second staleness, semantics for each auth_status value, and the meaning of latest_version being None. This is far more transparent than typical descriptions.

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 lengthy but well-structured, with a clear opening sentence and distinct sections for auth_status and return fields. Every sentence adds necessary detail, though some trimming of the auth_status explanation could make it tighter without losing 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?

The description leaves little ambiguous: it documents all return fields, explains each auth_status value with failure modes, covers caching behavior, and gives user-facing instructions. The output schema exists but the description goes beyond it, making the tool fully understandable.

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 accepts no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on the return payload and status meanings. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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's function: 'Get version, auth status, and conservative MCP capability visibility.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like refresh_auth or save_auth_tokens, which handle authentication actions rather than status reporting.

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 provides actionable guidance for AI assistants, such as what to do when update_available is True, and thoroughly explains auth_status interpretations. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to prefer this tool, but the context clues are strong enough for a status-only tool.

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