get_server_info

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

The description goes significantly beyond the hints by detailing *how* it behaves operationally—namely, it operates locally and does not initiate network requests to external services ('without... contacting Google'). This is a crucial behavioral constraint missing from standard annotations.

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 definition is perfectly sized (a single sentence). Every part of the sentence contributes equally by defining the output, the scope, and the operational limitations.

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 that the function is read-only and stateless (0 parameters), the description is complete. It provides all necessary context regarding what the agent will receive and how the operation is bounded.

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?

Since the tool takes zero parameters, the description must act entirely as context. It effectively defines the scope of the information retrieved (config and permissions), making the definition robust despite the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly defines the resource and data being exposed ('local configuration and stored permission status'). It is highly distinguishable from the task-management siblings.

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?

While it doesn't compare itself to a specific alternative, it provides critical usage constraints by defining the operational boundary. The explicit mention of not exposing secrets or contacting Google guides the agent on appropriate use cases (i.e., safe, local inspection).

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