List servers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implicitly conveys a read-only operation and the phrase 'the client API key can access' discloses the auth scoping, which is useful context. However, pagination behavior, default page size, and any considerations around the inline, non-persisted credential overrides are left undisclosed.

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 with no wasted words; the resource is stated first and the access scope follows. It is efficient, though for an 11-parameter tool one sentence borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, 55% schema coverage, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is not sufficient. Missing are pagination semantics, return shape (e.g., what identifying fields a server entry carries), and any note on how inline panel/clientKey overrides interact with the 'selected panel.'

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 55%, so the description should compensate, but it adds meaning for just two concepts: the client API key (clientKey) and 'the selected panel' (panel, including the default-when-omitted behavior). It says nothing about page/perPage, the filter, or the type scopes, leaving roughly half the parameters undocumented in prose.

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 and resource ('List servers') plus a meaningful scope: only servers the client API key can access on the selected panel. An agent can infer it is distinct from server_get (single server) and panel_list (panels), but the description never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus server_get (single-server fetch) or panel_list (enumerate panels), and no statement of when-not to use it. The only usage hint is the implicit scoping to the 'selected panel,' which the schema already conveys via the panel parameter.

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