server_info

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: what versionMismatch means, and the non-obvious constraint that same-version .eext reinstalls are ignored so the version must be bumped first. No return-format/pagination detail, but for a status read this is substantial added value.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the returned field list before the versionMismatch semantics. Dense but each clause carries distinct information (field inventory, mismatch meaning, remediation). Slightly overstuffed in the second sentence but no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return values itself — and it does, itemizing the status fields. Combined with the versionMismatch explanation and remediation, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('MCP server status') followed by an enumeration of exactly what status is returned: daemon version, WebSocket port, connection state, connected instances, allowed origins. This clearly separates it from diagnostic siblings like list_instances or bridge_restart.

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 implicitly defines the use case (diagnosing version mismatches among connected extensions) and names the remediation path, including the alternative tool bridge_restart. It doesn't state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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