get_server_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the non-obvious behavior that stdio connections keep their startup-time schema and explains that an old started_at/git_sha indicates a stale connection. This goes well beyond simply stating the tool's purpose.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one short sentence. The second paragraph is longer but earns its place by providing essential troubleshooting context, with no filler or 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?

There are no parameters, the output schema covers return values, and the description supplies the key non-obvious context about connection staleness. For a zero-parameter introspection tool, this is complete.

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 an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools is appropriate here.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb ('Report') and names the exact returned resources: version, git SHA, start time, and Blackboard root. This is far more informative than a tautological restatement and clearly distinguishes the tool from the memory/plan/task/state 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call this first when an expected tool seems missing, because a stale connection can hide newly added tools. It also tells the agent how to interpret the results, making the diagnostic workflow actionable.

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