list_webmin_servers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It suggests a read-only listing operation but does not confirm side effects, authentication needs, or any constraints beyond what the schema (empty) indicates. It adds basic context but is not thorough.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output.

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, the description is nearly complete. It specifies what is returned (aliases, connection info, default flag). It could optionally mention ordering or error behavior, but that is not required for basic usage.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The rubric gives a baseline of 4 for zero-param tools. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not.

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 action (list), resource (Webmin servers), and what information is provided (aliases and connection info, default server). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_webmin_users which target different resources.

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 clear context of when to use the tool (to see all configured Webmin servers) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, the resource name naturally guides usage compared to siblings.

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