Get a server sub-resource

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

The description says only 'Fetch', and the annotations list readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, with no contradiction. The description adds modest transparency by framing the operation as read-only retrieval, though it does not detail pagination or error behavior beyond what the schema implies.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states the action and scope. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing and front-loads the key information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not mention return shape or pagination semantics. The parameter schema covers filtering and pagination details, so the description is adequate for a straightforward fetch operation, but it leaves some contextual details about response behavior implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the resource values, which helps map the 'resource' parameter, but it does not provide additional explanation for pagination, filtering, or detail beyond what is already in the parameter descriptions.

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 'Fetch' and identifies the exact scope: one facet of a server. It enumerates the available facets (allocations, egg variables, backups, etc.), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_server that fetch the whole server.

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 phrase 'one facet of a server' communicates that this tool is for sub-resource retrieval rather than full server retrieval, giving implicit usage guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the resource enum and sibling context make the intended use reasonably clear.

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