list_nameservers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that results are limited to 20 by default and that the limit can go up to 100, which is behavior beyond the tool's name. It doesn't mention sorting or errors, but the output schema exists for return structure.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, then a concise context note and parameter definition. There is no fluff or redundancy, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral constraint (limit) and the output structure is presumably in the schema. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 'Args' section fully explains the 'limit' parameter, including its default (20) and maximum (100), which the input schema does not specify (schema only has default). This adds meaningful semantic detail beyond structured data.

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 'List DNS nameservers from phpIPAM' with a specific action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle sections, subnets, addresses, VLANS, etc.

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 purpose is unambiguous and there are no sibling tools for nameservers, so no explicit alternatives are needed. The 'CONTEXT OPTIMIZATION' note provides a usage hint about result limits, which helps the agent understand expectations.

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