server_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool reports environment information and hints at read-only nature through the verb 'report,' but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, has no side effects, or specify any other behavioral characteristics. The description adds useful context about lineage availability but lacks definitive safety statements.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose ('Report the connected Tableau environment') followed by the specific data points and a clear usage recommendation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with an output schema (even if not shown), the description is complete. It specifies what information is returned, the intended first-call use case, and what the user can infer about lineage depth. No additional context is needed 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 is empty (0 parameters), giving a baseline of 4 per the rubric. The description does not mention parameters because there are none, which is appropriate. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 states the tool reports the connected Tableau environment, listing specific details (server URL, site, versions, auth method, lineage availability). This specific verb+resource clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like graphql_query or where_used, which serve different purposes.

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?

Explicitly recommends this as a 'good first call to confirm the connection and understand what lineage depth to expect,' which provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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