infobase_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the password is never echoed (only password_set), the profile is read locally, and a live liveness probe is performed at host:port. It does not state failure behavior when the env file is absent or whether it is strictly read-only, but the disclosure is well above average for an unannotated tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the closing enumeration of the return object ({env_file, env_present, infobase {...}, platform_root, ...}) is redundant since an output schema exists, and phrasing like 'natively' and 'target descriptor' adds jargon without information.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the description covers source, security handling, liveness check, and a scope limitation. The main residual gap is that it never says when this is preferable to the sibling connection-status tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it identifies env_file as the profile path, infobase_path as the override, and host/port as the TPort liveness target. Defaults and accepted format for infobase_path are still unstated, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: report TestClient infobase/connection metadata, naming the exact source (.ai1c/*.env profile) and the live TPort check. It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with the near-identical sibling test_client_status or get_state, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

Usage is only implied — the agent learns it can override the profile with infobase_path/env_file and that richer handshake metadata is a separate 'decode follow-up'. There is no explicit when-to-use versus test_client_status, qa_mcp_doctor, or com_connector_doctor, and no stated prerequisites.

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