列出逻辑服务器

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds non-obvious behavior: it does not connect to the remote, does not read credentials, and does not trigger TOFU — meaningful side-effect exclusions the annotations cannot express.

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?

A single clause-dense sentence. The positive scope ('non-sensitive summaries of available logical servers') is front-loaded, and the three negative guarantees follow compactly. Nothing is redundant or padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be restated, and the description correctly focuses on scope and side effects. It is complete enough to call safely, with only the lack of explicit sibling routing as a residual gap.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is a closed empty object with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('列出可用逻辑服务器'), and narrows the payload to '非敏感摘要', which tells the agent exactly what class of data comes back. It implicitly separates itself from connection-oriented siblings like test_connection by asserting it never connects, though it never names an alternative tool outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery/selection step before operating on a server. There is no explicit 'use this before X' or 'use Y instead when you need connection details' guidance, so routing among siblings rests on inference.

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