list_mid_servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds 'verify they are healthy', implying some behavioral check beyond mere listing, but does not detail what verification involves or what happens if a server is unhealthy. Does not contradict annotations.

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 concise (two sentences) with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks explanation of what 'verify healthy' means or what the output looks like, which would be helpful for full understanding.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter well-described in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning or context for the parameter, so it meets 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 lists MID servers and verifies they are healthy, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from other list tools by focusing on health verification, but could be more precise about what 'verify healthy' entails.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling list tools, the description should clarify that this is for MID server health checks, but it does not provide when-not-to-use or mention any references.

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