cvcue_server_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the three categories of data returned, which is the main behavioral fact for a zero-parameter info tool, but it never states explicitly that the call is read-only, requires no elevated permissions, or has no side effects, and gives no hint about response shape or size.

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?

Two short sentences, with the returned data front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause carries information and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, the description covers the essentials: what data comes back and a reason to call it. The only real gap is the unaddressed overlap with cvcue_api_modules and the lack of any indication of what 'server health' comprises.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameter-free call.

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 names specific resources: server version, supported API module versions, and server health. It is clearly an informational lookup, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling cvcue_api_modules, which plausibly covers overlapping 'supported API module' territory.

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 sentence 'Use to check whether an endpoint/version is available on this server' gives a concrete preflight use case. However, it offers no when-not guidance and never names the overlapping sibling cvcue_api_modules or cvcue_session_info, so an agent must guess which tool to call for module listings.

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