list_servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the filtering behavior (status/name) and the return of IP addresses, but it doesn't discuss pagination, limit semantics, or other operational traits beyond that. Given the annotation coverage, this is a reasonable but not extensive transparency level.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and filters, with no redundant or extraneous content. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 operation with an output schema (which likely explains returned fields), the description adequately covers the main purpose and filtering options. The main gap is the unmentioned 'limit' parameter, but overall it is reasonably complete for its complexity and existing structured metadata.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'status' (with examples ACTIVE, SHUTOFF) and 'name' (substring filter), but it entirely omits the 'limit' parameter, leaving its meaning (likely max results) ambiguous. This partial coverage meets a minimum but leaves a significant gap.

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 ('instances') along with specific output fields ('status and IP addresses'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_server' by indicating it lists multiple instances rather than retrieving a single one, and it's not tautological.

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 explicit usage context by mentioning optional filters for status and name substring, which helps agents know how to narrow results. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., get_server) or any exclusion criteria, so it falls short of an explicit 'when-not' guideline.

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