query_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'READ permission', indicating non-destructive behavior, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any other traits like response size limits, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The behavior is simple and the action enum fully specifies the operations, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose. It is not verbose and front-loads the key information. However, the title is null, and the description could be slightly expanded to improve usability without being wasteful.

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 tool with one parameter and a probable output schema (not shown but implied), the description covers the essential purpose and permission. The input schema covers parameter semantics. It does not explain return values, but the output schema likely fills that gap. Overall, it is adequate for straightforward usage.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'action' fully documented in the input schema, including explanations of both enum values. The tool description adds only 'READ permission', which is implied by the action names. No parameter details beyond the schema are provided, so baseline 3 applies.

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's function: 'Get server info and current user information (READ permission)'. It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resources. The input schema further distinguishes two actions (server_info, current_user), making the purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from sibling tools like query_streams and modify_streams by focusing on server-level metadata and user info.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions 'READ permission', it does not explain when query_server is preferred over other query tools (e.g., query_streams). No exclusions or context for usage are given.

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