server_info

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

Discloses detailed behavioral traits: 30-second TTL caching, mtime-based bypass on auth-file changes, multi-probe strategy (homepage + API fallback). Explains that auth_status may be up to 30 seconds old and how external login is picked up. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; no contradictions.

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 relatively long but well-structured with clear sections, bullet points for auth_status meanings, and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, though some repetition exists (e.g., 'cached credentials may be reported as configured' could be merged with caching explanation). Still appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

Given zero parameters and a fully described output schema (including version info, update availability, auth status, and update command), the description is complete. It covers all return values and their interpretation, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info as none are needed. The description's value is in explaining output rather than inputs.

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 explicitly states 'Get server version, check for updates, and report auth status' with specific verbs and resources. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on server metadata and auth status.

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?

Provides explicit guidance for AI assistants on handling update_available and each auth_status value, including actionable steps (e.g., 'inform the user that a new version is available', 'ask the user to run nlm login'). Also explains caching behavior and when to assume re-auth is needed.

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