info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context by enumerating the type of data returned (name, version, build commit, runtime, capability counts), which is useful beyond the annotation. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a simple read-only info tool this is sufficient.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and then lists specifics. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple, no-parameter tool with no output schema. The description gives a complete picture of what the tool does and what it returns, making it unnecessary to elaborate further. The return fields are listed, so the agent can anticipate the response.

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 parameter semantics are trivial. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds context about what the tool returns, which is the only relevant semantic information.

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: 'Returns identity and build information for this server.' It uses a specific verb ('returns') and identifies the resource (server info). It also lists specific components (name, version, build commit, runtime, capability counts), making it distinct from sibling tools that manage flows.

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 context: when you need server identity/build info. The sibling tools are all flow operations, so the purpose is clear without explicit alternatives. Although it doesn't state exclusions or when-not-to-use, the context is unambiguous for an info endpoint.

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