get_server_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It is a read-only getter and that is implicitly clear, but it doesn't disclose potential prerequisites, performance characteristics, or the exact shape of the returned properties. It lists examples but does not explicitly state whether the output is a single object with these fields or if additional fields are included.

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 a single, concise sentence that leads with the verb and resource, followed by examples. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description provides a clear sense of what to expect (server instance properties, with specific examples). However, it doesn't outline the exact return structure or mention whether it returns all properties or only the listed ones, leaving slight ambiguity for an agent.

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 coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaning by naming the specific property groups returned, but since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. No further parameter explanation is 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 starts with the specific verb 'Get' and clearly names the resource as 'SQL Server instance properties', listing concrete examples (version, edition, collation, clustering, HA configuration). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools that operate on tables, views, procedures, etc.

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 implies its use for retrieving server-level configuration rather than database objects, providing clear context among siblings. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the unique scope makes the usage obvious.

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