cloud_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'List cloud servers' and filtering capabilities. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, whether it is idempotent, or any potential side effects. It also fails to describe pagination behavior, even though the input schema includes page and per_page parameters. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the filtering support is stated directly. However, it could be more structured (e.g., listing parameters) and still remain concise. There is no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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?

Although an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations). It does not specify default values for pagination (e.g., per_page default), the syntax for filters (e.g., exact string or regex), or sorting behavior. The description lacks sufficient detail to allow an agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for any of the 6 parameters. The description only adds meaning for 3 parameters (name, label_selector, status) out of 6. It omits explanations for page, per_page, and sort, leaving their semantics unclear. While the description partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions, it is inadequate for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 lists cloud servers and supports filtering by name, label_selector, and status. The verb 'List' and resource 'cloud servers' are specific, and the tool name is distinct from sibling tools like cloud_get_server. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other list tools (e.g., cloud_list_firewalls), but the context and name make the purpose clear.

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 like cloud_get_server (for a single server) or other list tools. There is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or which sibling tools to consider when the user needs different filtering or scope. The description is purely functional, lacking usage context.

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