optimize_server_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'analysiert' (analyzes) which servers can be removed, but it is unclear whether it actually performs removal or merely returns a suggestion. The lack of explicit side-effect disclosure is a significant gap.

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 begins with a concise one-sentence summary, then includes a structured Args section. While slightly verbose, it is efficient and well-organized. Could trim the German repetition, but overall appropriate length.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It describes analysis but does not mention the output format or return value. For a tool with two simple parameters, this is a notable omission, leaving the agent uncertain about the result.

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 0%, but the description includes an Args section that adds meaning to both parameters: 'current_servers' is explained as 'Aktuell geladene Server-Namen' and 'task_description' as 'Was soll erledigt werden'. This provides context beyond the schema's minimal labels.

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 the tool's purpose: optimizing a server set by analyzing which servers are necessary and which can be removed. The verb 'optimize' and resource 'server set' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from siblings like 'analyze_task' and 'suggest_minimal_set' by focusing on removal of unnecessary servers.

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 implies usage when you have a task and a set of loaded servers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'suggest_minimal_set'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving ambiguity about optimal context.

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