get_server_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, error scenarios (e.g., invalid appUuid), or latency. The phrase 'including config and current state' gives some context but is insufficient.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It could be slightly expanded to cover usage without losing conciseness.

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 has two required parameters and no output schema. The description partially explains the output ('config and current state') but lacks details on the return structure. For a simple informational tool, this level is acceptable but not fully complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. The description adds minimal value by stating appUuid must be the app UUID, but does not explain serverId or provide formats. With no enums or nested objects, the description should give more parameter usage guidance.

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 tool retrieves detailed info for a specific server, including config and current state. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_servers (which lists all servers without details) and get_app_detail (which targets apps).

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 mentions a prerequisite ('appUuid must be the app UUID') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_servers or when not to use it. Usage context is implied by the name and resource specificity.

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