Query server identity (no credentials)

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, so credit goes to what the description adds: it discloses that this uses an out-of-band endpoint and requires no rcon_password, which is genuinely useful auth context. It does not mention latency, rate limits, or failure behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The returned fields are front-loaded and the usage/credential note follows immediately, so nothing is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return formatting, and it still conveniently previews the fields. For a simple, no-arg, read-only probe, everything an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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; the description correctly adds no parameter syntax that would be redundant. There is nothing more needed for a no-arg call.

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 names a specific action (query the server's getinfo out-of-band endpoint) and enumerates exactly what it returns: hostname, players online, max clients, protocol, game build. It also implicitly separates this credential-free identity probe from the rcon-based siblings like server_command and 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?

It gives a clear use case ('use it to confirm which server you are pointed at') and the key selection condition ('works without rcon_password'), which routes the agent here rather than to credential-requiring tools. It stops short of an explicit when-not or naming the alternative tool.

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