server_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does state the return content (version, tools, configuration), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only, safe, or what side effects (if any) exist, though the informational nature implies it.

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, front-loading the primary purpose and then elaborating on output. Every word adds value, with no fluff or redundancy. It is optimally concise for a zero-parameter info tool.

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 (0 params) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for an informational endpoint, with no missing essential context such as prerequisites or side effects.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter information, and the input schema confirms no parameters are needed. No additional explanation is required beyond what the schema already shows.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('server information and capabilities'). It distinguishes itself from siblings focused on stacks, DNS, and health checks by covering general server metadata. The inclusion of return content (version, tools, configuration) adds clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like health_check are related but no differentiation is provided. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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