get_servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds a real behavioral trait not present in structured data: an automatic inventory refresh (eq/update_servers) triggered before the first call. It also discloses that results are summary-level, which sets expectations for downstream calls. It does not mention pagination or result caps.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with identity and scope, then the side effect, then the routing hint. Nothing is padding and each sentence changes agent behavior.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of saying what comes back ('server IDs and brief data') and points to the richer sibling for full detail. The pre-call refresh side effect is also covered. Pagination/volume limits are the only notable omission.

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% and every parameter (ip, mac, group, status, location) already documents its semantics, including the accepted comma-separated codes. The description only says 'with filters' and adds no syntax, precedence, or combination rules 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 names a specific verb and resource ('List Hostkey account servers') plus the filter scope, and explicitly separates itself from the sibling get_server by scoping its return to IDs and brief data. An agent can pick between get_servers and get_server without opening either schema.

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 concrete alternative and the condition that selects it ('use get_server for the full card'), which is exactly the routing decision an agent faces here. It stops short of stating when to use search_servers_by_tag or the stock-server listers, so it isn't fully exhaustive.

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