get_server_info

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe read operation with deterministic behavior. The description adds valuable context about what information is returned (capabilities, services, frameworks, engines) and the tool's purpose for understanding server functionality, which goes beyond the basic safety annotations.

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 perfectly structured with three concise sentences: first states the core purpose, second elaborates on what information is provided, third gives explicit usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy or wasted words.

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 0 parameters, comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and an output schema exists, the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, what information it returns, and when to use it, which is fully adequate for this simple informational 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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on the tool's purpose and output semantics, which is the correct approach for a parameterless 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('AWS Security Posture Advisor MCP server'), with explicit details about what information is provided ('server capabilities, supported AWS services, compliance frameworks, and available intelligence engines'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on server metadata rather than security assessments or health checks.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this tool to understand what the server can do and how to use its capabilities.' This provides clear context for usage (understanding server capabilities) and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that perform security assessments or health checks.

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