hcloud_show_server_limits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the tenant-level scope, which is modest but real context; it does not describe the return shape, quota units, or the reset period, which is a gap given there is no output schema.

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?

A single seven-word sentence with the key scope (tenant) front and center, zero padding. It is efficient rather than padded, though the brevity leans toward under-specification.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is minimally sufficient — the agent knows to pass a region and get quotas back. But without an output schema, the agent cannot know what quota categories or units to expect, and overlapping sibling quota tools remain undifferentiated.

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% and there is only one parameter, so baseline is 3. The description implies the region scoping but adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare "Region" label — not even an example format or whether it is required to match an existing availability zone.

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 has a verb ("Show") and a resource ("ECS quota/limits") with tenant scoping, so the general intent is legible. However, "quota/limits" is unspecified — it does not say which quota dimensions (vCPU, memory, instance count, per-AZ) are returned, and it gives no signal distinguishing it from the sibling hcloud_show_quota or hcloud_show_image_quotas.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated alternative, and no prerequisite (e.g., whether the region must exist or whether it targets the current project). An agent seeing hcloud_show_quota alongside this tool has nothing to route on.

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