Show this server’s configuration and limits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it explicitly states it never returns the API key, describes what happens with over-budget requests (refused), and mentions the confidence threshold. This enriches the behavioral understanding beyond the annotations.

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 sentence but is information-dense, listing all the key items (base URL, model, API key, context budget, threshold, connectivity, tool list) without fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose ('Report this server's configuration and safety limits') and ends with a clear usage directive. Every word earns its place.

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 that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, the description is complete. It covers what the tool reports, what it doesn't return (API key), and why to use it. An agent has all necessary information to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 schema has 100% description coverage and 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters because there are none. It does specify what the tool reports, which is effectively the 'return' content, though not structured as parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('this server's configuration and safety limits') and enumerates the exact items covered (base URL, default model, API key presence, context budget, confidence threshold, client connections, tool list). It is distinct from sibling tools like jev_score or jev_ask, which have different purposes, and the description explicitly says to use it to confirm what the agent is connected to.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use it to confirm what an agent is actually connected to.' This provides clear context and purpose, distinguishing it from alternatives. While it doesn't explicitly say 'when not to use,' the guidance is sufficient for an agent to know this is the go-to for server info, not for scoring or asking questions.

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