arvan_list_servers

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds the regional scope but lacks other behavioral details like pagination, response format, or authentication requirements.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loading the key purpose. However, it could be slightly restructured to separate the parameter context. Overall efficient but minimal.

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 is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic function. But it does not mention what the response contains or any filters beyond region, which may be needed for an agent to effectively use the output.

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 parameter 'region' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'in a region' but does not explain what values are accepted, the default behavior (null meaning list all regions?), or any constraints. This is insufficient for proper use.

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' and the resource 'cloud servers (VMs)', specifying the regional context. It distinguishes from get/create/delete server tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like arvan_list_images or arvan_list_volumes.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that arvan_get_server is for a specific server, or that arvan_create_server is for provisioning. The agent has no help choosing among the many list tools.

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