server_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the exact return format (JSON string with keys: name, version, status, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies what the agent will receive.

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 highly concise: one opening sentence, a brief return-format section, and a short example. Every element earns its place without redundancy, and key information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only info tool, the description is complete: it states the purpose, lists the return keys, and provides a usage example. The presence of an output schema also reduces the need to explain return values further.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by showing an example call (`await call_tool("server_info")`) and documenting the return shape, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Return') and clear resource ('Blender MCP server information, version, and status'). It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like blender_status by focusing on the MCP server itself rather than Blender state.

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 usage as a simple server info query and provides a code example, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., blender_status) or any exclusions. Since it is a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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