get_server_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly labels the call as read-only, states that it needs no workbook, touches no file, and contains no side effects. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs beyond the schema.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the exact report contents, and the second gives usage context and a decision hook. Every phrase adds value.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed: what is reported, that it is safe and side-effect-free, when to call it, and how to use the results to decide on enable_tools. Nothing important is missing.

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 and the schema has no properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly focuses on what the tool reports. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb, 'Report', and a concrete resource: the KitchenSink4XL server build, including version, enabled tool surface, optional packs, platform, and Python. This clearly differentiates it from the many workbook-centric sibling tools, especially since it explicitly states no workbook is needed.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: to confirm the server is reachable and to inspect loaded packs before deciding whether to call enable_tools. It also states what it is not for operationally ('needs no workbook and touches no file'), which helps route away from workbook tools.

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