mf_full_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'display' (表示), which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side-effect safety, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral details. The description adds no information beyond the obvious action of showing configuration.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with concrete examples (request scope, callback port) adding clarity without verbosity.

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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It tells the agent exactly what information will be displayed. However, it could optionally mention that it requires no arguments or that it is the first step before authentication, but given the tool's trivial nature, this is not a significant gap.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description does not need to add parameter info since the schema is empty. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate, reflecting that no parameter documentation is required.

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 displays server configuration information (request scope, callback port, etc.) with a specific verb ('表示する' – display) and resource. It is not a tautology and gives concrete examples. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, though none of the siblings appear to overlap in function.

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. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer that it is appropriate for checking server settings. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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