managed_server_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly labels the tool as '[READ]' and lists the returned fields, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose pagination, authentication needs, or rate limits, which are typical behavioral traits. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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: two lines with no wasted words. The '[READ]' prefix efficiently sets expectations, and the parameter guidance is front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential elements: the action, resource, returned fields, and parameter usage. It omits details like sorting or filtering, but for a straightforward list tool this is largely sufficient.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains 'target' as 'Veeam target name from config; omit to use the default', which adds valuable context beyond the schema's type definition. This clearly guides the agent on valid values and default behavior.

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 clearly states 'List managed servers' with the specific fields (id, name, type, description). The '[READ]' prefix further clarifies the action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like backup_list or job_list.

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 guidance on the 'target' parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like backup_list or repoistory_list. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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