Server info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing that no network/service call occurs, that the data reflects only the running process, and what a hash mismatch implies (stale process, requires client reconnect). That staleness semantic is behavior an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the return payload, then the isolation caveat, then the operational workflow. No sentence is redundant and the CLI invocation is concrete rather than filler.

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 output schema, the description compensates by naming every returned field, and it covers the interpretive question (what tools_hash means, who can act on it) that an agent would otherwise be unable to answer. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no argument semantics to clarify. The enumerated field list is really about return content rather than inputs, but with no output schema it usefully previews what comes back.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reports this running MCP server's name, version, protocol_version, tools_hash, tool_count and tool_names') and immediately bounds the scope ('describes only the running process and makes no call to the service'). No sibling tool in the list returns process metadata, so it is trivially distinguishable from all 20 alternatives.

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?

Explicitly assigns the tool to 'A human or CI' and names the concrete workflow (compare tools_hash against `python3 mcp_server.py --print-version` on disk, reconnect the client if they differ). It also states the negative case — an MCP-only agent has no on-disk value, so it cannot perform the check — which is unusually honest when-not-to-use guidance.

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