tascan_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. The description adds value by specifying what the tool returns (server and schema identity) and frames it as a diagnostic step. No contradictions; the behavioral context is appropriately transparent.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant information. The analogy in the second sentence enhances understanding without bloating.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations fully cover safety, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, why it exists, and when to use it. No additional information is needed.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. No additional parameter detail is necessary.

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 identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Identify') and resource ('TaScan server and schema'). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are mostly CRUD operations, by being the only diagnostic tool for session identity.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Call this FIRST when diagnosing anything' and gives concrete use cases ('dev server masquerading as production' and 'is my fix deployed yet'). This makes the appropriate usage very clear.

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