vsz_list_auth_servers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all' without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or has any side effects. For a simple listing tool, this might be acceptable, but the description adds no transparency beyond the action itself.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose plus an Args line for the parameter. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a low-complexity list operation with an output schema available, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It does not mention any usage context (e.g., when to list all servers vs. getting one), nor does it disclose any potential edge cases like unreachable host. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the description alone feels slightly thin.

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 input schema has a single 'host' parameter with no description (0% schema coverage). The description compensates by clarifying that 'host' is the 'vSZ controller IP or hostname', adding meaningful semantic information that the schema lacks. While it doesn't provide examples or formats, it sufficiently explains the parameter's purpose.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' with a clear resource 'all authentication (AAA) servers', which precisely states the tool's action and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'vsz_get_auth_server' (which implies fetching a single server) and 'vsz_test_aaa' (which tests AAA).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or suggest using 'vsz_get_auth_server' for detailed information on a specific server. There is no contextual hint beyond the basic action.

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