capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety traits. The description adds the behavioral guarantee 'Never returns secrets', which is a meaningful security-related disclosure not present in annotations. It also clarifies what information is shown.

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?

Two short sentences with no fluff. The action verb 'Show' is front-loaded, and the security note 'Never returns secrets' is a concise, high-value addition. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and a key behavioral guarantee. The term 'operation classes' is not explained, but the existing output schema likely provides structure, making this sufficient overall.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter syntax or meaning; it focuses on the output content, which is acceptable.

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 uses specific verb 'Show' with resource 'configured server and enabled operation classes', making the purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like server_details and server_status by focusing on operation classes, even if not explicitly contrasting them.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_servers or server_details. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without selection criteria beyond the name itself.

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