tm1_get_server_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'Static' hints that the data is non-changing and likely read-only, but the description does not disclose output format, error behavior, permissions, or whether any special context is needed. The hint is useful but minimal.

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 extremely concise—three words, no filler, and the key qualifier 'static' is front-loaded. For a zero-parameter, single-purpose server information tool, this level of conciseness is appropriate.

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 and parameterless, so the description is adequate for invoking it correctly. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin on what the returned configuration actually contains, which leaves an agent without enough context to interpret results confidently.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for undocumented inputs.

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 names the resource ('server configuration') and qualifies it as 'static', which, combined with the tool name, makes the operation reasonably clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools that target cubes, dimensions, processes, views, and other model objects, though it is expressed as a noun phrase rather than an explicit action statement.

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 the tool is for retrieving static server configuration information, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over sibling list/get tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or fallback alternatives.

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