List Cloud Servers (IaaS API v3)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the '[READ]' prefix merely duplicates structured data. The description adds no behavioral context about pagination, rate limits, or region-scoping semantics beyond the URL template.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded with the read marker, so there is no wasted text, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined concision. A single endpoint string is not sufficient content for the field.

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 3-parameter listing tool with an undocumented pagination surface and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent would need beyond the raw endpoint. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the listing/pagination contract remains unstated.

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 coverage is only 33% (region is documented, page and perPage are not), and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all — it never mentions pagination or the region placeholder's significance. A low-coverage schema with a silent description leaves pagination behavior unexplained.

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 is essentially a URI restatement ('GET https://ecc.{region}.arvanapis.ir/v3/servers') plus an OpenAPI spec tag, with no prose verb+resource. An agent must infer 'list servers' from the name/title rather than the description itself, and there is no differentiation from the sibling list_servers (v1/v2).

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_servers or invoke_iaas_v3_api. The agent is given nothing about when this v3 variant should be preferred over the generic IaaS invoker.

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