list_servers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a 'formatted table' which adds useful context about output format, but doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements for accessing server configurations.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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's moderate complexity (1 parameter, read-only operation), the description is quite complete. It explains purpose, parameter usage, and output format. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values further. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention that this is a read-only operation, though that's implied by 'List'.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does this excellently by explaining the single parameter's purpose ('Optional group name to filter by'), behavior ('Shows all servers if omitted'), and relationship to other tools ('Use list_groups to see available group names'), adding substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('List all configured SSH servers') and resources ('SSH servers'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning 'groups and descriptions' which aren't covered by other tools like execute or download_file.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it mentions using 'list_groups to see available group names' for filtering, and specifies that the group parameter is optional for showing all servers, giving clear context for usage decisions.

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