List Woodpecker instances

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and open-world, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: what `check` actually calls (/api/user), the exact reporting format ('ok (logged in as <login>)' or error message), resilience ('one unreachable instance does not fail the call'), and the no-instance-configured fallback returning configuration instructions.

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?

Three semicolon-linked clauses, each carrying distinct information, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first clause. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 no output schema, the description properly describes return values (instance names and base URLs, per-instance connectivity strings, and the configuration-instructions fallback). Everything needed to call and interpret the tool is present.

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 single parameter is 100% covered by the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description goes further by explaining the side effect of `check: true` and the shape of its output, adding genuine meaning beyond the schema's one-line summary.

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 ('Lists the Woodpecker CI instances this server is configured with') and even names the returned fields (name and base URL). It also clarifies the tool's role relative to all siblings by noting every other tool takes one of these names as `instance`.

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?

Implies clearly that this is the discovery step before calling other tools, and gives the condition for `check: true` (verify connectivity/token). It does not explicitly state when *not* to set check (e.g. cost/latency tradeoff), leaving a small gap.

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