get_server

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by listing the specific fields returned (flavor, image, key pair, etc.). This clarifies what 'full detail' means. It does not disclose potential errors or edge cases, but for a read-only operation with annotation, this is sufficient.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Full detail for one instance') and then lists the key fields. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool is a simple get-by-identifier operation with an existing output schema and read-only annotations, the description provides sufficient context by listing the returned attributes. It doesn't mention error cases, but that is not critical for such a straightforward read operation.

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 description mentions 'one instance' but does not explicitly explain the 'name_or_id' parameter. The parameter name is self-explanatory, and the description implies identification without stating it directly. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate more but doesn't fully.

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 'Full detail for one instance' and enumerates specific attributes (flavor, image, key pair, security groups, addresses, metadata), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from list-type siblings like list_servers.

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 use for fetching details of a single instance, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like list_servers or get_console_output. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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