opn_mcp_info

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses return format and fields. No side effects or destructive actions implied; transparency is adequate for a read-only info tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage, then return fields. No wasted words, efficient and clear.

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?

Complete for a simple info tool with no parameters and a stated return. Could mention permissions or error conditions, but not necessary given simplicity.

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?

No parameters exist (empty schema, 100% coverage). Description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline score for zero parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool gets MCP server version and runtime configuration, listing specific fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are action-oriented or query other data.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to check...' providing clear context. While it doesn't specify when not to use, the purpose is straightforward and distinct from sibling tools.

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