server_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read-only operation (health/status) via a GET route, which is non-destructive and safe. While it doesn't detail the specific fields returned (handled by output schema), the behavioral nature is clear.

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?

A single sentence that is clear and to the point. No unnecessary words or redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource efficiently.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely adequate. It tells what the tool does. Minor improvement could mention it returns server health status, but it's sufficient.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty object). With no params, the description doesn't need to add parameter meaning; baseline 4 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 clearly states the tool returns 'Health/status of the server' via the REST server's GET / route. It specifies the verb (get health/status) and resource (server), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with records.

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 explicit when/when-not/alternatives are given. However, the context of sibling tools (count_records, get_record, list_records) implies this is for server health, not data operations. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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