bookstack_server_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and waste, clearly stating what the tool does. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing the sections or providing a brief example, but it remains appropriately concise for its purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (low, with one optional parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format. For a tool that provides 'comprehensive' information, the description should do more to guide the agent on what to expect from the response.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'section' parameter fully documented via enum and description. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the content of each section. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 purpose: 'Get comprehensive server information including capabilities, tools, resources, and usage guidance for LLM interaction.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('server information') with details about what information is included. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bookstack_system_info' or 'bookstack_help', which might provide overlapping or related information.

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. It mentions retrieving 'server information' but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'bookstack_system_info', 'bookstack_help'), the lack of comparative context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage.

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