epl_server_info

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

The description adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true) by specifying that the tool returns information about current functionality, planned extensions, MCP version, and phase. This contextual detail is useful for an agent.

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 extremely concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose sentence, a brief detail sentence, and a structured use case. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 zero parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's output: current functionality, planned extensions, MCP version, and phase. It is complete for an info tool.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description does not contradict or miss any parameter-related details.

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 status and API phase information, with a specific use case about answering questions regarding server capabilities and roadmap. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (all epl_* but different purposes) with no ambiguity.

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 <use_case> explicitly defines when to use this tool: to discover available tools and the roadmap status. It provides clear context without needing to mention alternatives, as the tool is unique in its purpose.

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