get_servers

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

The description reveals an important side effect: before the first call it automatically updates inventory via eq/update_servers. This directly contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation, which signals no state modification. Per the contradiction rule, this dimension must be scored 1.

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 two crisp sentences with no filler. It packs in purpose, filter capability, a side effect, return summary, and sibling routing. It earns its length.

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 listing tool with schema-described optional filters, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, the auto-update behavior, and how to get full data. It does not describe pagination or filter combination semantics, but those are not critical for a simple list call.

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 100%, so the structured definitions of ip, mac, group, status, and location already carry the parameter semantics. The description only says 'with filters' and adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

The description clearly states the tool's job: list Hostkey account servers with filters. It also distinguishes itself from get_server by noting it returns IDs and brief data, while get_server provides the full card. An agent can immediately tell which tool to use for an overview versus a detailed server view.

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?

It gives a direct routing cue: use get_server for a full server card, implying get_servers is for filtered overview listing. It doesn't explicitly compare against other list/search siblings, but the most relevant alternative is named and differentiated.

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