skill_server_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates this is a retrieval operation ('Return server-level documentation') and lists the exact fields returned (name, description, skills_dir, transport), making the behavior predictable. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or 'no side effects', but the wording and scope strongly imply it.

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 well-structured with distinct sections (function_purpose, Description, Returns, Usage) and every section adds value. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but the return list and usage note are relevant and not redundant with the schema, given that the schema has no properties.

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 simple, parameterless info tool with an output schema, the description fully covers its purpose, returned values, and usage recommendation. It explains what the tool does, what data it provides, and how to handle it (cache after initial call), making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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, and the schema shows an empty properties object. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and there is no additional parameter info to add since none exist. The description's focus on return values and usage is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Return server-level documentation including purpose and usage', clearly stating the tool's verb (Return) and resource (server-level documentation). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on server metadata rather than skill operations, which are all covered by other tools like skill_list_all and skill_get_detail.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Call this tool once when connecting, then cache/show details in the client UI or logs.' It also notes it is 'Useful for clients to show contextual info' without needing exclusions since no sibling tool serves the same server-info purpose. This is clear guidance on when and why to use it.

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