Measure one server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side effect that the tool launches or connects to a server and lists its tools, and it names the reported outputs. However, it says nothing about auth requirements, process-spawn side effects, timeouts, or failure behavior when a URL/command is unreachable.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the input requirement placed last where it is easy to find. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover returns — and it does, naming the result, protocol version, and token cost. It is nearly complete for a 3-param, 0-required tool, though it omits error/timeout behavior and how the token cost is computed.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of meaning with the 'either a remote URL or a local command' mutual-exclusivity hint, but it never mentions the `window` parameter or clarifies the relationship between url/command and the token-cost share.

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 gives a concrete verb chain (starts/connects, lists tools, reports) and a specific resource (one MCP server), plus the concrete outputs: protocol version and token cost of tool definitions. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like measure_config or lookup_server, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Give either a remote URL or a local command' describes the input mode but not when to choose this tool over measure_config, lookup_server, or search_servers. Usage is implied by the verb ('measure one server') rather than stated, with no exclusions or prerequisites.

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