Validate server

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states that server connection and configuration are validated, but does not explain what that entails (e.g., network requests, side effects, failure behavior, or return format). This is a minimal hint at behavior, not a transparent disclosure.

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, straightforward sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, delivering the core purpose in a clear, front-loaded manner.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states the purpose and the input. However, it lacks context about what 'validating' involves, what a successful or failed validation means, or any related resources (e.g., server UUIDs). The absence of such details leaves the agent under-informed, though not completely lost.

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 schema provides only the parameter name 'uuid' with type string and no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description repeats 'by UUID' but does not clarify what entity the UUID refers to (e.g., the server's UUID) or how to obtain it. It adds marginal meaning beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a clear verb ('validate') with a specific resource ('server connection and configuration') and a unique identifier ('by UUID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getServer or listServers by focusing on validation rather than retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getServer or listServers. There are no usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the verb alone.

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