exact_get_server_info

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond those by stating that connection secrets are not exposed and that metadata availability is checked live, which is useful behavioral context not present in the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes an important safety constraint. There is no redundant wording, and every phrase adds meaning.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter) and annotations cover safety traits, but there is no output schema and the description does not clarify the return structure or the refresh parameter's effect. The description is adequate for basic invocation but incomplete for a fully informed agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the single 'refresh' parameter, but it never mentions it. The boolean name and default value give minimal hints, but the agent is left without guidance on what refresh does, when to enable it, or the consequences of leaving it false.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the resource as server info, then enumerates the checked aspects: configuration, connectivity, product selection, and live metadata availability. This clearly separates it from sibling tools that focus on capabilities, entities, or actions. 'Product selection' is slightly ambiguous, which prevents a top score.

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 implies the tool is the diagnostic entry point for server-level concerns, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as exact_get_capabilities or exact_list_entities. An agent must infer routing from the list of checks rather than being told directly.

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