Get Server Info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It goes beyond a simple statement by detailing the return structure: product version, SDK version, tested version, compatibility status, and a dict with specific keys. It even explains the 'error_detail' field is set only on 'internal_error,' which is transparent about conditional behavior.

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 compact: three sentences that lead with the main action, then a use-case note, then a structured list of return fields. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully documents the return values, including possible statuses and when error_detail appears. It also communicates the operational context (diagnosing version mismatches) and the fact that no restart is needed. The tool is simple, and this description covers all necessary aspects.

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 no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate. The empty schema is fully covered, and the description focuses on the output instead.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Return MCP compatibility status for this LoreDocs server.' This clearly distinguishes it from vault-centric siblings and even the related vault_get_server_capabilities by focusing on version and compatibility. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 states 'Useful for diagnosing version mismatches on running servers without requiring a restart,' which gives a clear, concrete use case. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide selection. The phrase 'without requiring a restart' adds practical value.

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