list_hot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Featured/hot MCP servers,' omitting details such as ordering, recency criteria, pagination, or any side effects. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged to explain return values.

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 extremely concise at three words, but it sacrifices informativeness. While there is no fluff, the tool would benefit from a slightly longer description that adds value 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?

Given the complexity of seven sibling tools, the description is insufficient to distinguish this tool's purpose and behavior. It does not explain how 'hot' differs from 'trending' or 'featured,' and lacks context about output or special characteristics. The high schema coverage does not compensate for the lack of behavioral context.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, which already documents its range and default. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Featured/hot MCP servers' clearly indicates that the tool lists featured or hot servers. The verb 'list' is implied by the tool name and the description confirms the resource type. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like list_trending or search_servers, lacking specificity on what constitutes 'hot' vs 'trending'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_trending or search_servers. There is no mention of when this tool is appropriate or when it should be avoided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the minimal description.

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