server_get

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get server information' only implies a read operation; it does not describe what information is returned, whether the section parameter filters the output, or any other behavioral characteristics such as error cases or response format.

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 a single short sentence with zero fluff; every word is purposeful. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could have used the space to add sibling differentiation or behavioral context without becoming verbose.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, the role of the section parameter, or how this tool differs from server_get_by_ip. This incompleteness could lead an agent to pick the wrong getter or misinterpret the response.

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%, with both parameters documented (server_id as the required ID and section as a config filter). The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get server information'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling server_get_by_ip, which also retrieves server information. The name and required server_id parameter imply the distinction, but the description itself does not make it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use server_get versus alternatives such as server_get_by_ip, client_get, or other getters. The only hint is the required server_id parameter in the schema, but the description does not state the intended use case or selection criteria.

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