Server Info

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the specific content returned (health, version, capability metadata), which goes beyond the generic annotation but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential variability (though openWorldHint suggests data may vary). It adds some context but not deep behavioral insight, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and lists exactly what is returned. Every word earns its place with no fluff. It is perfectly sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 that the tool has no parameters, is read-only (as annotated), and has an output schema available, the description is fully sufficient. It names the three categories of returned information (health, version, capability metadata) and the output schema provides the detailed structure. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 the input schema is an empty object. According to the rubric, a tool with 0 parameters receives a baseline score of 4 because there are no parameters to explain. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and no additional parameter semantics are required.

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 'Return server health, version, and capability metadata' uses a specific verb (Return) and names the exact subjects (health, version, capability metadata). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all data-specific queries (search_records, get_record, list_tables, etc.). An agent can immediately tell this is the tool for server-level introspection, not data access.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, but the context is clear: it is the only tool that returns server metadata among siblings that handle records and tables. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative named, but the purpose is self-evident, and the read-only annotation reinforces that it is a safe diagnostic call. It lacks an explicit 'use this when...' statement, 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.