get_server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns full information including configuration, network, status, and location, which sets expectations for the content. However, it does not disclose any other behaviors like response format, pagination (unlikely for a single object), or potential performance characteristics. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and key scope in a compact manner. No redundant words, and the information is organized logically (ID, then what is returned). Efficient for an agent to parse.

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 get-by-ID operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It lists the major categories of returned data, which helps the agent understand what to expect. It could be more explicit about the exact structure or any limitations, but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, it is adequate.

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 input schema has one parameter (id) with a clear description ('ID сервера в InvAPI'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description repeats 'by its ID' but adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, this is a 3.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('server'), and clarifies scope by ID. It lists the categories of information returned (configuration, network, status, location), which distinguishes it from more specific siblings like get_server_sensors or get_server_billing_data. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_servers (the plural listing tool), leaving some ambiguity about when to use this vs. the list.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It is implied that you use it when you have a specific server ID and want full details, but the description does not mention exclusions or refer to sibling tools such as get_servers for listing. The agent must infer usage from the parameter and naming.

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