Получение сервера

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

The description describes a read-only retrieval operation ('Возвращает детальную информацию'), but the annotations set readOnlyHint=false. This is a direct contradiction: the tool is presented as purely returning data while the annotation suggests it is not read-only. No further behavioral context is provided to resolve this inconsistency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and details, and includes a concise usage note. No redundant or filler content; every sentence adds value.

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 operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return fields and usage context well. It could mention error scenarios or response format, but the current information is mostly sufficient. The contradiction with annotations slightly harms completeness, but the dimension focuses on contextual coverage.

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 is one parameter (server_id) with 100% schema description coverage, already explaining it is required and how to obtain it via list_servers. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Возвращает детальную информацию по конкретному VPS-серверу' (returns detailed info about a specific VPS server) and enumerates specific data returned (status, CPU/RAM, OS, IPs, preset/configurator ID). It distinguishes from list tools by emphasizing 'конкретному серверу' (specific server) and gives use cases.

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 usage context: 'Использовать когда нужны подробности по одному серверу' (use when details about one server are needed) with examples like core count for load calculation and status before an operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for a specific fetch operation.

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