list_servers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the server list is derived from .env.<name> files on disk and that return content includes screen_do keys. It does not state output format or explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation, but the verb 'List' makes the lack of side effects reasonably clear.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Every part adds useful information about what the tool returns.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description is adequate: it names the resource, the source of server names, and the additional keys included in the result. A slightly more explicit statement of output shape would make it fully complete since no output schema is provided.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. The schema already covers this fully, and the baseline for no-parameter tools 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names a concrete resource ('configured IBM i servers'), and it further clarifies the naming source ('named by the .env.<name> files on disk') and that it also exposes the keys screen_do accepts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like session_open and screen_do.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent would call this to discover available servers and screen_do keys before using other session tools. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or ordering guidance.

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