get_server_options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and that it is non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — not what the options are (feature flags, limits, settings), not whether they require admin rights, and not the shape of the response.

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, but the second sentence ("GET /options") is pure redundancy with the name and adds no information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient writing.

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 annotation detail about content, the description leaves an agent unable to predict what the returned "options" contain or how they relate to set_server_option. Given the large sibling set, more context was warranted.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 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?

"get Options. GET /options." restates the tool name and the HTTP verb without saying what an "option" is or what the call returns. It cannot be distinguished from the sibling get_user_options, which by name appears to be the user-scoped counterpart.

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 indication of when to call this versus get_user_options, set_server_option, or get_system_info. The agent must guess that this retrieves server-level configuration options.

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