opn_mcp_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 behavioral disclosure — and it excels. It thoroughly documents the tri-state 'savepoint_support' field, including the upstream 26.7+ version change, that false means changes are 'immediate and permanent', and that null means no write has probed it yet. This kind of nuanced runtime behavior is precisely the contextual value an agent needs and could not infer from the schema alone.

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 front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, followed by practical usage context, then return-field details. Every clause adds value — the savepoint_support explanation in particular earns its length. It loses one point for the final sentence being a slight run-on, but overall it is dense with relevant information and wastes no words.

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 zero-parameter introspection tool, this description is thorough: it documents the purpose, the return fields, and the subtle version-dependent behavior. It could note explicitly that this is a safe read-only operation, but the content strongly implies it and the behavior documentation is more than sufficient for an agent to use this correctly.

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 and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there is nothing parameter-related to explain. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline 4. The description goes beyond this baseline by documenting the return dict's keys and their semantic meaning.

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 opens with 'Get MCP server version and runtime configuration' — a specific verb+resource that precisely states what the tool does. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the ~85 sibling operations by scoping it to the MCP server's own metadata (version, write mode, API version) rather than firewall or system state. The name 'opn_mcp_info' is fully and usefully expanded upon.

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 phrase 'Use this to check...' explicitly enumerates the concrete scenarios (checking version, write mode, API version, savepoint protection) which tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which would push it to a 5.

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