Get Server Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'check if it is online' behavior, but does not disclose potential timeouts, error handling, or what happens if the server is unreachable. It adds some value beyond annotations but is not rich in behavioral detail.

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 are concise and front-loaded with the core action. The phrase 'and more' is slightly vague but not wasteful. Overall well-structured and easy to scan.

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 simple read-only query tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, key output fields, and a usage scenario. It is not overly complex, so this level of detail is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters (address, port, timeout). The description does not add extra parameter guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves server metadata and lists specific fields (name, map, player counts, VAC status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_players and get_rules by focusing on an overview, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides a clear use case: 'overview of a server or check if it is online.' It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly exclude use cases for sibling tools like ping or get_all, which could also handle online status or full information.

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