get_server_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering side-effect safety. The description adds the high-level return payload ('Dictionary containing server configuration and status'), which is useful but not extensive. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two short lines, front-loaded with the action, with no filler or repetition. The 'Returns' line earns its place by giving the output shape at a high level.

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 info endpoint with rich annotations and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. No critical operational detail is missing for this simple 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?

The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. With 0 params and 100% schema coverage, the description need not provide additional parameter details.

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 action ('Get information') on a specific resource ('the OSM Edit MCP server') and notes the return type. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling data-retrieval tools like get_osm_node or get_changeset.

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 purpose is clear enough that an agent would invoke it when needing server configuration or status, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided. Sibling check_authentication is also a meta tool and could be confused, yet the description does not differentiate.

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