swsd_get_server_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by noting it does not call SWSD (local-only), preventing agents from expecting live data. It also mentions including upstream rate limits, which is useful context. Slight gap: no mention of output shape, but output schema exists, and no behavioral edge cases.

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?

Concise three-sentence description. Front-loaded with what it returns, then clarifies local-only and added value (rate limits). No fluff or duplication of schema/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 tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It adds the crucial 'does not call SWSD' context and mentions rate limits, which are otherwise inferable. Nothing missing for correct invocation.

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 0 parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to explain parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool with full coverage; there's nothing to clarify.

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 it returns server info (name, version, profile, enabled tools, base URL) with a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'SWSD MCP server's name...'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it's local-only and does not call SWSD, and it includes rate limits. It's distinct from read operations on incidents, users, etc.

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 states it's local-only, indicating it's for server introspection rather than SWSD data retrieval. It implies when to use (need server info, rate limits) and contrasts with tools that call SWSD. Does not explicitly exclude specific siblings but the local-only note is clear guidance.

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