hub__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. 'List connected servers' does not state whether this is a safe read operation, what the return format looks like, whether it can fail if no servers are connected, or whether authentication is required. 'List' implies non-destructive behavior but this is not explicitly stated.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the operation 'List'. However, it is arguably under-specified for a tool that could benefit from a brief note about what constitutes a 'connected' server, though this is a minor gap.

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?

This is a simple listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, so the description should clarify what 'connected servers' means and what the expected result is. The description is minimal but functional for a zero-parameter list operation. Given its simplicity, it might profit from stating whether it returns server identifiers, statuses, or metadata, but for a straightforward list it is marginally adequate.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (the schema correctly declares an empty properties object). With no parameters to document, the description adequately covers the parameter space; there is nothing more to explain. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 'List connected servers' has a specific verb ('List') and resource ('servers'), clearly indicating a read-only listing operation. It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like search_tools and get_analytics, but doesn't clarify what 'connected' means or what type of servers are involved, leaving some ambiguity about the scope.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The other siblings (search_tools, get_analytics, check_tokens, route_task) have clearly different purposes, so context implies this is for server management, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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