baasix_server_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' communicates read-only intent, which is valuable, but the description does not state whether authentication is required, what 'health status' covers, or that the operation is side-effect free. It provides partial transparency only.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and the structure is optimally concise.

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?

Despite being simple, the description would be more complete if it outlined the expected response fields (e.g., version, uptime, db status) and any auth prerequisites. Since no output schema exists, the agent is left guessing at the return shape. That said, for a 0-parameter health probe it is barely sufficient.

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 nothing to document. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no parameter semantics, which is acceptable since no inputs exist.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Baasix server information and health status'), making the tool's function immediately recognizable. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling status tools like baasix_auth_status or baasix_realtime_status, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as baasix_auth_status or baasix_realtime_status. The purpose phrase implies use for server-level health checks, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations. This is adequate for such a simple tool, but relies on inference.

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