List Servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, so the description's behavioral disclosure is supplementary. It adds that the tool supports filter/sort/include and mentions the include parameter, which provides useful operational context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: first lists the returned fields, second gives actionable usage advice. Every sentence is purposeful and concise. Information is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and output fields. With 6 parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description adequately describes what the tool returns and how to use it. The mention of pagination or cursor is missing but schema covers it. The guidance to find server ids completes the context for a list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds value by recommending a specific value for include ("tags"), which provides semantic guidance. It does not repeat schema descriptions, making it efficient.

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), the resource (servers in an organisation), and enumerates key returned fields (provider, region, size, PHP version, IP addresses, provisioning status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_server (single server) or list_sites (different resource).

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?

Explicit advice to 'use this to find a server id for the other tools' provides clear context for when to use this tool. It also suggests trying include="tags" to enrich results, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it. The context is clear and helpful.

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