list_servers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the result scope ('all configured SQL Server connections') and the returned fields, which is sufficient behavioral transparency for a read-only listing. It does not mention side effects, but the verb 'List' implies none.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, includes only essential detail fields, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 listing tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a clear description of returned fields, the description is fully complete. An agent can invoke and interpret the result without further information.

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 zero parameters, so the description needs to add no param details. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exist. Per baseline for 0 params, this scores 4.

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 clearly states the action (list), the resource (all configured SQL Server connections), and the detail fields (host, database, auth type, security mode). It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_databases (which lists database names) and get_server_info (which provides server-level info).

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 implies the tool is for enumerating configured connections but does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusions. A clear context is present, but there is no direct guidance on selection among siblings.

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