get_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'View server configuration details' without explicitly stating that the operation is read-only, what response format to expect, or any error/permission conditions. The verb 'view' implies non-mutating behavior, but this is not elaborated beyond the tool's basic purpose.

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, focused sentence: 'View server configuration details'. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary details, and directly conveys the tool's core function.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), but the description is minimal. It conveys the purpose but does not specify what the returned configuration details include, how to handle missing servers, or any preconditions. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer behavior.

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 schema already provides a 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'server_id' with 'Server ID'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter's format, source, or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('View') and the resource ('server configuration details'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_servers (which lists all servers) and add_server/update_server/delete_server (which modify servers). The required 'server_id' parameter confirms it targets a single server.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for retrieving details of a specific server, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions. The only hint comes from the parameter name, which is implicit rather than stated.

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