RAS Agents

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

The annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable context about what information is returned (hostname, IP, OS, agent version, status) and the practical use cases. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral insight beyond what annotations offer.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states what the tool does and what information it returns. The second sentence provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 read-only listing tool with comprehensive annotations and no parameters, the description provides good context about what information is returned and when to use it. However, without an output schema, the description could benefit from more detail about the return format (e.g., whether it's paginated, sorted, or includes all fields mentioned).

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct for this tool. No parameter information is needed or provided.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Parallels RAS agents deployed across the farm', specifying what information is included (hostname, IP, OS, agent version, current status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on agents rather than other infrastructure components like certificates, connection brokers, or sites.

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 explicit usage contexts: 'verify agent deployment, diagnose connectivity issues, or check agent versions'. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes, which prevents a perfect score.

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