List servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the permission requirement 'Requires servers.read' and outlines output fields, which is extra transparency beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, focused, and free of filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds only essential behavioral and output context.

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 schema already explains pagination, detail levels, and search, the description is largely complete. It adds output field expectations and permission requirements, though it does not mention response envelope or ordering, which are minor gaps for a list tool with no output schema.

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 descriptions already cover all four parameters thoroughly. The tool description adds valuable detail by specifying that search matches server name, UUID, and owner, which is not fully enumerated in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline for a fully schema-covered tool.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'game servers' with scope 'across the whole panel', and additionally specifies what each record contains (node, owner, egg, primary allocation). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_server or get_user_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 gives useful context about the search filter and the panel-wide scope, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_server, get_user_servers, or search. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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