Get server resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the specific resource types included (applications, databases, services), which is useful, but it does not disclose potential response size, pagination, or filtering behavior. The description is consistent with annotations; no contradiction.

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 with no redundant phrasing. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and resource scope.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but misses parameter semantics and usage guidance. The ambiguity with the sibling tool listResources further reduces completeness, making this a minimally viable description rather than a fully self-contained one.

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 input schema has one required parameter (uuid) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain that uuid refers to the server identifier, leaving the agent to infer it from the tool name and resource context. This is a clear gap that the description should have compensated for.

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 all resources (applications, databases, services) running on a server' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly defining a consolidated resource listing scoped to a server. It distinguishes from getServer (server info) and from listApplications/listDatabases/listServices (singular resource types), though it may overlap with listResources.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a server-scoped resource listing but does not mention when to prefer it over calling individual list tools or how it relates to listResources. No exclusions or alternative names are provided.

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