server_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states 'Health/status of the server' without disclosing whether it is read-only, safe, or any side effects, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 extremely concise (four words) and front-loaded, but it lacks structure or any elaboration beyond the core idea. While not overly verbose, it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. However, it does not clarify what constitutes 'health/status' or whether the tool is acceptable for frequent checks, leaving some gaps.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed; baseline for 0 params is 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 clearly indicates the tool provides server health/status information, distinguishing it from the sibling 'greet' tool. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an action, which could be more explicit.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool vs the sibling 'greet' or any prerequisites, making it suboptimal for an agent deciding between tools.

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