pikvm_servers

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

With no annotations, the description does add real value: it discloses the returned fields and makes a security guarantee ('Never shows passwords'), which tells the agent no credentials will leak. It omits whether the call is read-only, whether it performs network probing (latency/partial failure behavior), and any auth prerequisites, which is a meaningful gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by return contents and the security guarantee. No filler, though the sentence break for 'Never shows passwords' is a touch fragmented.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and there are no parameters to cover. The remaining gap is behavioral: no indication of whether listing probes the network or what happens for unreachable hosts, which matters for a discovery 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste space on phantom inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the PiKVMs this tool can reach') and adds the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not differentiate from the sibling 'pikvm_endpoints', which reads as an overlapping concept, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'this tool can reach' implies a discovery use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the 14 siblings. An agent must infer that pikvm_endpoints is not the right pick for enumeration.

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