get_server_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose that providers are 'sanitized' (secrets redacted) and that the response is a scoped config view. It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effects or any permission requirement, so a small gap remains, but the sanitization note is a meaningful disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste: the contents list is front-loaded and the 'call this first' guidance follows. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (providers, allowed_roots, feature flags, limits), so an agent knows what to expect. Combined with the orientation hint, nothing needed to invoke this zero-arg tool is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the empty input schema.

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 ('Show') and resource ('this server's config') and enumerates exactly what is returned: providers, allowed_roots, feature flags, limits. An agent can distinguish it immediately from config-mutating or model-related siblings like set_write_mode or get_command_whitelist.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first if unsure what's configured', which gives a clear triggering condition. It stops short of naming alternatives or when NOT to call it, but the orientation advice is concrete and actionable.

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