server_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention read-only nature, auth requirements, potential side effects, or any limitations. For an info tool, one would expect at least a statement that it is a safe, non-mutating operation.

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, ultra-compact sentence. Every word is relevant and there is no redundancy. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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 absence of parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context for a simple informational tool. It covers the main content areas (version, paths, env vars, export dir, documentation links), though it does not elaborate on the structure or purpose beyond that. This is sufficient for selection and basic 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, giving a baseline of 4. The description adds value by enumerating the categories of information returned, which indirectly explains why no input is needed. This helps the agent anticipate the output scope.

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 is a noun-phrase list: 'Version, paths, env vars, export dir, DataCite documentation links.' While it lacks a verb, it clearly indicates the tool returns server-related configuration and documentation information. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'corpus_status' or 'repository_health', which focus on data or repository state.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The description simply lists content areas without explaining the context in which a user would invoke it.

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