List Servers

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation with a closed-world scope. The description adds valuable context by specifying what information is returned (status, tool count, circuit-breaker state), which helps the agent understand the output format beyond the safety profile covered by 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all connected MCP backend servers') and immediately specifies the returned attributes. There is zero wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations covering safety and behavior, the description is nearly complete. It adds output details (status, tool count, circuit-breaker state) that compensate for the lack of output schema. A minor gap is the absence of explicit usage guidance versus siblings, but overall it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output details, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools that avoid unnecessary parameter discussion.

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 specific action ('List all'), resource ('connected MCP backend servers'), and scope ('with their status, tool count, and circuit-breaker state'), which distinguishes it from siblings like gateway_get_stats or gateway_list_tools that focus on different resources.

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 retrieving server status information, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gateway_get_stats (which might provide aggregated metrics) or gateway_list_tools (which lists tools rather than servers). It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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