get_server_info

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only' and details the full scope of metadata returned, including the conditional behavior when `surnames` is true. It also discloses the return envelope ('status', 'url', 'data'). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden and does a solid job, though it doesn't mention potential errors or rate limits.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a detailed but organized list of metadata categories, and a compact Args/Returns section. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value, and the key read-only nature is front-loaded.

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 read-only metadata tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it lists the endpoint, the metadata contents, the parameter effects, and the return envelope. It lacks explicit error/edge-case behavior, but that is a minor gap for this simple 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `surnames` ('If true, include the full list of surnames') and `instance` ('Gramps Web base URL from get_instances; default = first'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It could be more explicit about the format of `instance`, but it is adequate.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Gramps Web server, database, locale and object-count metadata'), and enumerates the exact metadata categories returned. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like ping and get_instances by naming the wrapped endpoint (GET /metadata) and listing its contents.

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 explains what the tool returns and mentions the `instance` parameter defaulting to the first from get_instances, which implies a relationship to get_instances. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ping or get_instances, nor does it state when not to use it.

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