list_servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description usefully adds that results are paginated, that visibility is governed by the configured token, and that related metadata can be opted into. It doesn't mention page-size caps or the shape of the response, but the valuable extras are present.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then the intended use, then the behavioral notes. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, and pagination behavior adequately. Only minor points like the per_page ceiling or response envelope are left implicit in the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents page, per_page, and the include list. The description restates pagination and the include options (node, egg, allocations) without adding format or default details beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List Wisp servers') and scopes it to 'visible to the configured API token', which lets an agent tell it apart from per-server siblings like server_details or server_status. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it's clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

'Use this to discover server IDs' states a concrete use case and implicitly routes the agent away from detail-oriented siblings. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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