get_efinity_info

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces that this is a read-only informational call and adds specifics about what is returned, but does not go beyond the annotations with additional behavioral detail like latency, authentication, or format.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and lists the exact information items. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes.

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 informational tool with a simple enumerated return list and no output schema, the description fully equips an agent to call it correctly. No prerequisites, side effects, or complex behaviors need explanation.

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 no parameters, and the schema reflects that with 100% coverage. The description has nothing to add about parameter meaning because there are none, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('the Efinity install this server uses') and enumerates the exact information returned: path, version, user settings folder, recent projects. It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools, none of which cover this scope.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs information about the server's Efinity installation. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or conditions where another tool would be more appropriate, though no sibling appears directly comparable.

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