List Pterodactyl network allocations

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false in the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns allocated ip:port pairs plus the default/primary, does not indicate whether anything is listening, and explicitly states that adding/removing/repointing allocations is not exposed. No contradiction exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concrete usage guidance and a clear read-only note. Every sentence contributes usable information without redundancy or fluff.

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 an output schema and rich annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what is returned, how to interpret it, the key limitation about listening ports, and the read-only scope. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100% for the single optional server parameter, which already documents the short identifier, the default environment variable fallback, and how to discover valid identifiers. The description does not need to add more and does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list the network allocations (ip:port pairs) assigned to this server, including the default/primary. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ptero_list_files, ptero_list_backups, and ptero_list_schedules.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool (to find which port a service should bind to) and when not to rely on it alone (allocation does not mean something is listening), and names the alternative confirmation path via ptero_read_file on logs/latest.log.

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