server_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds necessary behavioral context: required environment variables for API tokens, and a warning about provider rate limiting. Without annotations, this would score higher, but given annotation coverage, a 4 is appropriate.

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 a single coherent paragraph that front-loads the action list, then covers requirements, warnings, and alternatives. Every sentence adds value, though a bit more structure (e.g., bullets) could improve readability slightly.

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 5 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: actions, each action's behavior, authentication, rate limiting, and an alternative tool. Nothing critical is missing for effective agent selection and invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it repeats similar information and adds context about environment variables and rate limits, but those are not parameter-specific. Thus, score remains at 3.

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 'Get information about Kastell-managed servers.' and enumerates four specific actions. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from sibling 'server_fleet' for fleet-wide health queries.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context for each action, warns against repeated calls to avoid rate limiting, and directs users to 'server_fleet' for fleet-wide health and audit scores, covering both usage and alternatives.

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