server_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'without changing it' largely restates structured data. The one genuinely additive note is the default-server fallback when server_id is omitted, which is also in the schema, so little new behavioral context is contributed.

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 tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded followed by usage routing and the one conditional caveat. No filler and nothing redundant within the text itself.

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?

A simple read-only, two-optional-parameter tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage needs little more. The only real gap is that 'metadata' is vague about what comes back, which matters more given there is 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 description coverage is 100%, so both the include list (node, egg, allocations, features) and the server_id default fallback are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the conditional omission rule and a loose hint at what facet each include value yields, meriting the baseline score.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read metadata for one Wisp server', and enumerates the metadata facets (identity, allocation, feature, node, egg). It implies single-server scope versus the sibling list_servers, but never names that sibling explicitly to fully disambiguate.

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 clear usage context ('Use for identity, allocation, feature, node, or egg details') and an explicit conditional rule for omitting server_id when a default is configured. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it.

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