get_server_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific information (server version, available tools, etc.) and implies it's a read-only discovery operation. However, it doesn't mention potential behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it's idempotent. The description adds basic context but lacks richer behavioral details.

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 in the first sentence, followed by a concise usage guideline. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. The structure is logical and efficiently communicates the tool's role.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and usage well, and the output schema will handle return values. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, side effects), though the output schema mitigates some gaps.

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 has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it implicitly confirms there are no required inputs by not mentioning any. This aligns perfectly with the schema, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('DataBeak server capabilities and supported operations'), and distinguishes it from all sibling tools which are data manipulation operations. It explicitly lists what information is returned (server version, available tools, etc.), making the 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use to discover what operations are available before planning workflows.' This clearly indicates it's for initial discovery and planning, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform actual data operations. No misleading or missing guidance is present.

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