Server info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying exactly what information is reported (version, schemaVersion, persistence, auth, Stripe), which goes beyond the generic read-only hint. This helps an agent know what to expect from the response.

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 redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and content list, and the second sentence adds a practical use case. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and scannable.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It lists the capabilities and states its utility for checking server reachability. While it doesn't describe error scenarios or detailed response structure, that's not necessary for an info tool with annotations covering safety.

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 an empty object, so there is nothing to explain about parameters. The description correctly does not mention any, which is appropriate. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description fully aligns with that.

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: reporting the Railyard server's health and capabilities, and enumerates the specific items (version, schemaVersion, persistence, authentication, Stripe billing). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that operate on specific resources (projects, orgs, members) by focusing on server-level information, so an agent can easily tell it apart.

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 a clear usage context: 'Useful to confirm the server is reachable and which features exist.' This implies when to use it, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. However, given the uniqueness of the tool among siblings, the context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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