list_mid_servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context with 'verify they are healthy,' suggesting the tool performs health checks, not just listing. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, providing useful extra transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place and is easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, no output schema, and clear read-only annotations. The description covers the main action and purpose. Minor ambiguity around what 'healthy' means (e.g., status field values) exists, but overall completeness is good for the tool's complexity.

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 `active_only` is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) as 'Only show servers with status "Up".' The description does not add parameter-level detail, but baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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's action ('List MID servers') and adds a specific purpose ('verify they are healthy'). This distinguishes it from other list tools in the sibling set, as no other tool targets MID servers specifically.

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 implies when to use the tool (when needing to view MID servers and confirm their health) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Given the tool's unique function among siblings, the lack of explicit alternatives is acceptable, but the guidance is not fully developed.

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