list_servers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the backing artifact (the instance's servers.dat), which implies a read-only file read and where the data originates. It does not say what happens for a nonexistent instance, an absent servers.dat, or an empty list.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers the what but leaves the return shape (server name, address, icon?) and empty/error behavior unspecified. Adequate to invoke, incomplete for interpreting results.

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 0% for the single instanceId parameter, so the schema itself adds no semantics. The description compensates partially by tying the result to 'the instance's servers.dat', implying instanceId scopes the read, but it never states format or validation for that identifier.

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 (List) and a specific resource (multiplayer servers saved in servers.dat), which separates it from the sibling list_worlds without naming it. The data source is named, so an agent knows exactly what is being enumerated, though no sibling is explicitly referenced.

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?

Nothing states when to call this rather than list_worlds, get_instance, or add_server/remove_server. Usage is only inferable from the noun phrase 'multiplayer servers'; there are no exclusions or prerequisites given.

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