server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses core actions and their effects (e.g., 'start a server from npm script', 'get log file paths or docker command'), but omits details on side effects, permissions, or error behavior.

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 concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose and an enumerated list of actions. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficiently written without 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?

Given 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks information on return values, error handling, and the full behavior of many parameters, making it incomplete for comprehensive tool usage.

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 coverage is only 29% (4 of 14 parameters have descriptions). The description does not explain the meaning or usage of undocumented parameters like cwd, env, port, runner, or monitorPort, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Manage development servers' and enumerates all actions (start, stop, restart, etc.), making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools which are Chrome DevTools-oriented.

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 usage for server management tasks by listing actions, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it contrast with alternative tools.

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