VIPMP 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 enumerating the specific diagnostic data returned, giving the agent a concrete expectation of what the tool exposes. It does not describe any additional behavioral nuances, but none are needed given the annotations and simple nature of the tool.

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 core purpose and use case, followed by a compact list of the returned fields. Every sentence contributes directly to helping the agent decide to call and interpret the tool. No filler or redundant content.

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 diagnostic tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, use context, and return contents. The agent has all necessary information to correctly select and invoke the tool without ambiguity.

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 the schema already fully covers this dimension (100% coverage trivially). The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and the return-value list provides helpful context. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 and resource: 'Dump diagnostic info about the running server'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on docs, cache operations, or endpoints by emphasizing server-wide diagnostics and version information. The explicit output list ('package version, Python version, index age + counts...') further defines its 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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'useful as the first call when debugging...' and 'what version am I actually on'. This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest score.

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