milehost_list_servers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly implies a read-only listing operation and names the returned fields, but it does not discuss authentication requirements, rate limits, or runtime behavior beyond listing. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the important agent mandate immediately follows, making it highly scannable and useful.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what is returned, why it matters (folder_id for later actions), and when to call it. It could be more explicit about the absence of side effects or the optional auth parameters, but nothing critical is missing for invocation.

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 api_key and api_url already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 operation ('Lists all available user containers, servers, and folders on MileHost') and the key output fields (container IDs, names, statuses, runtime information). However, it overlaps somewhat with the sibling milehost_list_folders without explicitly distinguishing itself, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 AI AGENT MANDATE gives strong usage guidance: call this tool first to discover server containers and folder_id before executing commands or deploying files. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly route to alternatives.

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