get_server_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but never says so, nor does it mention permissions, whether the instance must be reachable, or rate limits. For a cross-instance query tool this is a meaningful gap.

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?

One tight sentence with the returned fields front-loaded after the verb. No filler, though the parenthetical field list is doing double duty as scope clarification.

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 usefully lists the returned fields (hostname, uptime, disk, memory), and the single required parameter is fully covered by the schema. It lacks any note on failure modes or instance-state prerequisites, keeping it short of 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 description coverage is 100%, so the single instance_id parameter and its '<account>/<name>' / 'custom/<name>' formats are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 (Get) and resource (server info) and enumerates the fields returned (hostname, uptime, disk, memory), which helps distinguish it from narrower siblings like get_server_memory or disk_usage. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many overlapping siblings (check_status, get_server_memory, disk_usage, fleet_health_snapshot). The phrase 'from any managed instance' hints at scope but gives no exclusions or selection criteria.

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