keycloak_get_server_info

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral value beyond the annotation: it warns that the raw endpoint dumps every SPI provider and theme, quantifies the size (~1MB), and explicitly states this tool returns only the useful head. This manages agent expectations about response size and omitted content. No contradiction with the readOnly annotation.

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 with zero waste. The primary content categories are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds the truncation behavior with a concrete size estimate. Every clause earns its place, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it enumerates the content areas and explicitly bounds the response by excluding the SPI/theme dump. The only gap is that it doesn't hint at the return structure (formatted summary vs. raw JSON fields), but for an agent deciding whether to call this tool to answer server-metadata questions, the practical information is present.

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 the baseline is 4 per the rubric — there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The description instead clarifies what data the no-arg call will yield (version, uptime, JVM/memory, feature flags), which is the relevant semantic information for an empty-schema tool.

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 enumerates what the tool returns — server version, uptime, JVM/memory info, and enabled feature flags — which identifies it as a server-level metadata read. It is implicitly distinguished from all 45 sibling tools, none of which target server info, and the second sentence further separates it from the raw endpoint. A minor gap: the verb 'returns' appears only in the second sentence rather than front-loaded, and the resource is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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?

Usage context is implied: the description signals this is the trimmed, useful-head variant of a much larger raw dump (~1MB), so an agent understands this tool is the compact choice. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives, and among siblings the generic keycloak_request passthrough is a plausible alternative that is never mentioned. The guidance is inferable but not stated.

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