server_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: that the server is read-only, that limits and allowlists are enforced, and that a single call is sufficient. It stops short of explaining whether this call itself consumes a rate-limit slot or how expensive it is.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents and followed by the call condition. Every clause earns its place with 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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields, which is the key thing an agent needs to decide to call it. It does not cover response format or whether output is structured/cached, a minor gap for a trivial zero-parameter tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is a 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed by framing it as a status/discovery call.

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 names a specific resource and enumerates exactly what it returns: PostgreSQL/PostGIS versions, mode (read-only), limits, and allowlists. This clearly separates it from the data-oriented siblings like run_sql and describe_layer, though it is phrased as a noun label ('Server status') rather than a verb+resource action.

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?

'Call once if unsure what is available' gives a concrete trigger condition plus an implicit frequency cap, which is useful guidance for a discovery tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not to call it, keeping it short of a full 5.

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