apisix_get_server_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the response is from the mcp-apisix client's probe, includes format version and capability list, and explicitly notes the Admin API lacks node info endpoints. This enriches behavioral understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: it front-loads the primary purpose, then clarifies what the response is and is not, and ends with the practical usage. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return value and context. It specifies that the return includes response format v2/v3 and an available capability list, and clarifies it is not runtime info. This is sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on the return value and purpose instead.

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's purpose: '查询客户端探测层状态' (query client detection layer status), specifying it returns response format v2/v3 and a capability list. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by clarifying it returns MCP client probe results, not APISIX node runtime info, which is a unique scope.

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?

It provides clear when-to-use context: '用于判断分页/过滤/校验等能力是否可用' (used to determine if pagination/filtering/validation capabilities are available). It also states when-not-to-use by explaining it is not APISIX node runtime information. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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