List allocations

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 implies a non-mutating read via 'List', but says nothing about permission requirements, pagination, ordering, or what happens if the server has no allocations. The parenthetical clarifies terminology but adds little behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the core action and clarifies the resource terminology. There is no padding, but also no structure beyond the one line.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the description should do more: it never describes the shape of returned allocations, whether results are read-only scoped, or how panel/baseUrl/clientKey resolution interacts with 'server'. The one-line statement leaves critical calling context unstated.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description explains no parameters. Notably, the required 'server' parameter has no schema description and the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the server's network allocations') and clarifies what an allocation is ('IP/port assignments'). It is clearly a read operation, distinguishable from mutating siblings like network_assign, network_set_primary, and network_delete, though it never names them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as server_get or network_assign, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g. panel selection or API key requirements) despite five parameters covering those concerns. The list semantics imply read-only usage, but that inference is all an agent gets.

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