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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small behavioral detail about the include parameter's allowed values, but does not disclose behavior regarding missing server_id or response format. This is acceptable given the 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?

Two short sentences, no redundant words. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second gives the only useful additional detail. Perfectly concise.

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?

With no output schema and only two simple parameters, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks some context: what server_id selects, whether it is optional, and what the return structure looks like. For a simple metadata getter with strong annotations, this is adequate but not outstanding.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'include may contain node, egg, allocations, or features,' which clarifies valid values for the include parameter. However, server_id is left entirely undocumented, and the description does not explain the relationship between the parameters.

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 a clear verb+resource ('Get server metadata') and specifies the optional include fields (node, egg, allocations, features). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like server_status or list_servers, which could be interpreted as similar metadata access.

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 explicit guidance on when to use server_details versus alternatives. The include hint is parameter-focused, not usage-focused. There is no mention of 'use for full metadata' or 'see server_status for quick status'.

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