list-servers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it lists 'all available' configurations but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, how results are formatted, if there are rate limits, or what 'available' means in practice. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. A listing tool should ideally describe what information is returned (e.g., server names, IPs, connection details) and any important constraints. The current description leaves too much undefined for practical agent use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('List') and resource ('SSH server configurations'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get-status' or 'test-connection' which might also retrieve server information, but it's specific enough to understand what it does.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-status' and 'test-connection' that might provide overlapping functionality, there's no indication of when this listing operation is preferred over other server-related tools.

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