info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the description adds value by detailing the exact fields returned (name, version, build commit, runtime, capability counts). There is no contradiction, and the description provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 with no waste. It front-loads the purpose ('Returns...') and lists the included fields concisely. 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return values by listing the fields. With zero parameters and a simple purpose, the description is complete for the agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns.

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, and the schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 that the tool returns identity and build information (name, version, build commit, runtime, capability counts) for the server. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings which focus on managing specific resources like applications, databases, etc.

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 context is clear: use this tool to retrieve server metadata. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the purpose is straightforward and self-explanatory for such a simple information retrieval tool.

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