server_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the value of runtime introspection over source code and clarifies output semantics (missing vs refused), but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or requires no special permissions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is well-structured across four sentences. It is slightly verbose in the source-tree comparison but every sentence adds 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?

For a simple, zero-parameter introspection tool with an output schema already defining return values, the description provides everything an agent needs: what it returns, why to prefer it over source code, and when to call it.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema itself provides complete parameter coverage and the description correctly does not discuss any. The baseline for zero-parameter tools 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?

The description states a specific resource and scope: the running server's version, implemented requirements with dates, and deliberately unimplemented items. It clearly distinguishes itself from reading a source tree, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to ask it instead of reading a source tree and to call it after an upgrade rather than discovering changes by breaking against them. This gives clear when-to-use context, though no sibling tool alternative or when-not-to-use condition is named.

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