get_about

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'returns' and 'confirms connectivity', but does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention authentication requirements or rate limits. Adequate but minimal.

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 sentences, 12 words total, front-loaded with key information. No superfluous language; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It tells what it returns and its connectivity check purpose. Minor gap: does not state if authentication is required, but for a basic info endpoint this is often optional. Overall 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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description correctly does not discuss parameters, as none exist. No additional meaning needed.

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 uses specific verb 'Return' and resource 'Mealie server version and basic info'. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_server_version' by including 'basic info' beyond just version. The confirmation of connectivity adds purpose context.

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?

The description states it 'confirms connectivity', hinting at use as a health check. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_server_version' or 'whoami'. No when-not-to-use or comparisons to siblings.

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