get_admin_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description contributes nothing beyond the route, notably not whether the response requires elevated admin privileges or what kinds of data (license, version, settings) surface.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but both sentences are low-value: the first repeats the tool name and the second repeats the route an agent already knows from the name. Brevity here stems from under-specification rather than discipline.

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 output schema and no description of the response payload, the agent has no idea what 'admin info' contains or whether the result is large. For an informational tool with no parameters, the description should at least characterize the returned data or its privilege requirements.

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 there are no parameter semantics to convey; baseline 4 applies. The schema is empty and fully consistent with the description.

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 restates the tool name and appends the HTTP route ("GET /admin/info"), which is a tautology rather than a statement of what is returned or what 'admin info' covers. It does not distinguish this tool from plausible siblings such as get_system_info, get_server_options, or get_current_user.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the many other get_* informational siblings. The only hint of usage is the implied endpoint, which an agent cannot use to make a selection decision.

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