get_server_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the categories of returned information, which is useful, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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 and structured with a clear Returns list, but the second sentence largely repeats the first, and the Returns list is somewhat generic. It is adequate but contains some redundant framing.

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 server-info tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently defines scope and enumerates the kinds of information returned. It does not need to explain parameters, and the return-value categories give the agent enough context to call it 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, so parameter semantics are not a concern. The description does not need to explain inputs, and the baseline for a zero-param tool is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about the FortiGate MCP server.' It clearly distinguishes a meta/server-information tool from device-configuration siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with tools like health_check or get_system_resources.

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?

It states what information is available but gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions or exclusions, and no alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for inspecting the MCP server rather than a FortiGate device.

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