get_server_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds genuine behavioral value by stating there is no Manager API call, that results are local process introspection, and that restart detection hinges on pid/start-time rather than git_sha. It stops short of describing latency, caching, or failure modes, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the enumerated output fields, then the usage rationale, so the important content comes first. The final sentence is long and parenthetical, packing three ideas at once, which slightly hurts scannability but each clause still carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still frames them usefully for the restart-confirmation use case. For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool, the definition gives an agent everything it needs to decide to call it and interpret the result.

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, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument invocation with no options or filters available.

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?

States a specific verb (identify) and resource (the manager-mcp process you're connected to), then enumerates exactly what is returned: version, source path, git commit, pid, start time, tool count, transport, scopes. The scope is narrow and self-differentiating from the ledger/report siblings, which an agent could never confuse with a process-introspection tool.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it (after a source edit + reload, to confirm the new code is live) and why that moment matters, including the fallback signal (pid and process_started_at change on a real restart even when git_sha does not). This is a textbook when-and-why instruction rather than implied context.

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