Все выделенные серверы аккаунта (по проектам)

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

The annotation readOnlyHint is false, but the description says 'list' which is a read-only operation. This is a direct contradiction, as the description implies the tool is safe and read-only while the annotation suggests it may not be. The description also adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotation already provides.

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 a single sentence that is concise and directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the core action ('List') and resource ('dedicated servers'), making it easy to parse. There is no redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, but the lack of an output schema and the brief description leave uncertainty about the exact return fields (e.g., server IDs, names, project IDs). The description covers the essential purpose but is not fully complete given the absence of structured output details and the contradictory annotation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings, and it does not add any parameter-related information, which is acceptable given the empty schema.

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 that the tool lists all dedicated servers of the account with project binding, which is a specific action on a specific resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_dedicated_servers or list_project_dedicated, but 'all' and 'account' imply the account-wide scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what it does, without stating the scenarios or exclusions. There is no mention of when to prefer this over list_dedicated_servers or list_project_dedicated.

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