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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond annotations by disclosing the returned fields and the underlying GET endpoint, which matters since there is no output schema. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, so not 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the key routing detail about realName, then the endpoint. Every clause carries information with no filler, though the trailing endpoint string is slightly redundant for an agent that only needs the tool name.

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 compensates by listing the returned service fields and the realName hand-off, which is the critical piece for chaining into runcloud_control_service. Combined with full annotation coverage, an agent has enough to call this correctly, missing only edge-case behavior like empty servers.

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% and the single server_id parameter is documented in the schema as a RunCloud server id cross-referencing runcloud_list_servers. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete resource and enumerates its contents (nginx, php-fpm, mariadb, redis, supervisor) plus the field shape (realName, running state, CPU, memory, version), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also links to the sibling runcloud_control_service via realName, aiding disambiguation. It lacks an explicit verb in the opening noun phrase, which keeps it just 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?

It states a clear consumption path: use this to obtain realName, which runcloud_control_service requires, effectively telling the agent when this tool is the prerequisite step. There is no explicit when-not or alternative listing tool mentioned, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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