Get Server Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint. The description adds specific fields returned (version, ID, connection status) and the HTTP mode requirement for counter model, providing context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, all informative: main purpose, optional parameter, usage guidance, and constraint. No filler.

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 read-only metadata tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, when to use it, and the prerequisite. The large sibling list doesn't create confusion because the tool's niche is clearly stated.

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 schema description covers the include_counter_model parameter thoroughly (100% coverage), and the tool description reinforces its purpose by connecting it to counter discovery workflow. This adds slight value beyond schema, justifying a 4.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Scouter collector server metadata'), and explicitly mentions the optional counter model. It differentiates from siblings by positioning the counter model as a prerequisite for get_counter_trend.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this to discover what counters exist before querying get_counter_trend') and provides a clear constraint ('Counter model requires HTTP mode'). This is direct guidance for alternative selection.

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