list_os_templates

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

No annotations provided, but the description clearly declares read-only behavior and warns about the destructive nature of the reinstall action not being available. This provides sufficient transparency beyond what structured fields would cover.

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?

Single sentence that is highly efficient, no filler, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, read-only nature, usage context, and relationship to destructive actions. It is complete.

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 has 100% coverage with a clear description for service_id ('Server ID from list_services.'). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 tool returns operating system templates for legacy VPS reinstallation, using specific verbs and resource context. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning Virtualizor and legacy VPS.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is read-only and that the reinstall action (destructive) is not exposed as an MCP tool, guiding when to use. However, it doesn't directly mention alternative tools like reinstall_service for performing the reinstall.

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