Lister les alias de serveurs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a display/list operation, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly confirm it's non-destructive or safe. It mentions 'with their details' but doesn't specify what those details include or how the data is formatted/presented. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool with no parameters, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details about output format, behavioral characteristics, or differentiation from siblings. With no annotations to provide safety/behavior context, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets the basic threshold.

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 description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It would score 5 if it explicitly stated 'no parameters required' or similar, but the absence of parameter discussion is correct for this case.

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: 'Affiche la liste de tous les alias de serveurs configurés avec leurs détails' (Displays the list of all configured server aliases with their details). It specifies the verb (displays/list) and resource (server aliases), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'server_add' or 'server_remove' beyond the inherent list vs. add/remove distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what other tools might be used instead for related operations. Given the sibling tools include both 'server_add' and 'server_remove', some basic differentiation would be helpful.

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