get_server_info

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: tool registrations are dynamic, visual QA tools are conditional, and the tool count is computed at call time rather than hardcoded. This goes beyond the structured fields.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the dynamic registration detail earns its place by clarifying why the count is computed at call time.

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?

With no parameters, a readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema present, the description provides all necessary context for an agent to call this tool correctly. The dynamic behavior explanation adds important completion.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since nothing is missing.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and clearly names the resource: server version, exposed tool count, and optional DIAL/visual QA integration status. This clearly distinguishes it from the presentation-focused sibling tools.

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 implies this is for server/environment introspection rather than presentation operations, and the lack of parameters makes the intended use fairly obvious. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusion guidance.

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