describe_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does state "Read-only" plus the kind of metadata returned, including observable status, parameters, responses, intermediate responses, defined errors, and FDL descriptions. It does not discuss permissions, limits, or failure modes, but the core behavioral profile is clear.

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 short, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds relevant information. The parenthetical enumeration is dense but purposeful.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description usefully summarizes returned metadata. However, for a tool whose only input is an undocumented `server` string, it should explain how to identify that server, likely via list_servers.

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?

There is one required `server` parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only says "one server" and does not explain whether this is a name, ID, or how to obtain it from list_servers, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource: "Describe one server's features." It enumerates the returned content (commands, parameters, responses, errors, properties), so the agent can distinguish this inspection tool from list_servers and call_command.

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?

It explicitly says to use the tool "to learn parameter names and types before call_command," giving clear operational guidance. It does not mention when to use list_servers or get_property instead, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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