server_info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It notes 'Safe' and 'non-sensitive', adding behavioral context beyond empty schema. However, lacks details on idempotency, rate limits, or response guarantees.

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 efficient sentences with no redundancy. First sentence states purpose, second provides usage context. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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?

Despite having output schema (not shown), description covers purpose, safety, and deployment context adequately. With 0 param complexity, it is reasonably complete. Could mention return format but output schema covers that.

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?

No parameters, schema coverage 100% (empty). Description adds meaning by specifying what is reported (server configuration, module flags) and that it is non-sensitive, going beyond schema structure.

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 states 'Report non-sensitive server configuration and enabled module flags', a specific verb+resource pair. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'describe_resource', the focus on server config vs. resources is implied.

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?

Description explicitly says 'Safe to call without a live pod connection — useful for verifying a deployment's configuration before exercising the HCM API', providing clear context for when to use. No explicit alternatives, but strong usage guidance.

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