server_info

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a retrieval-style operation and names the output categories, which is useful, but it does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, authorization requirements, failure modes, or how the information is returned. Some transparency is present, but not full.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the information categories with no filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only info tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call contract: which server to pass and what output categories to expect. It does not describe formatting, units, or error behavior, but given the low complexity, the description is substantially complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% because the only parameter, 'server', is already described as '目标服务器名称' (target server name). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as accepted formats, constraints, or how to discover valid server names, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('获取', get) and a specific resource ('远程服务器的系统信息', remote server system information), then enumerates the exact categories returned: OS, CPU, memory, and disk usage. This is clearly a read-only server details tool and is readily distinguishable from siblings like server_list and server_exec.

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 implies the tool should be used when system-level information about a target server is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools such as server_list or cloud_instance_info. It also does not mention prerequisites, such as obtaining a valid server name from server_list, or provide any 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.