GLPI server info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile of the call itself is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the payload contents and, importantly, the server-side safety modes (read-only, delete allowed), which an agent needs before deciding whether mutating tools are usable. Minor gap: no note on failure behavior when the server is unreachable.

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 sentences with zero filler. The return contents come first and the usage instruction is front-loaded at the end as an imperative, which is exactly the order an agent needs.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values and does so explicitly (API flavor, pinned version, URL, safety modes). Combined with the diagnostic trigger, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 the schema imposes nothing to interpret and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless probe and adds no misleading input expectations.

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 enumerates exactly what is reported: which API flavor (legacy REST vs High-Level API) with its pinned version, the GLPI URL, and the active safety modes. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like glpi_whoami or glpi_search_tickets, which retrieve identity or records rather than connection/config metadata.

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?

"Call it first when a connection problem is suspected" gives an explicit trigger condition and a priority ordering relative to other tools. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or naming a specific alternative, so it is clear context rather than a full decision tree.

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