Все серверы аккаунта (по проектам)

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

Annotation Contradiction: The description describes a listing/read operation, which should be read-only and idempotent, yet the annotations declare 'readOnlyHint: false' and 'idempotentHint: false'. This directly contradicts the described behavior. No additional 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 highly concise, consisting of two tightly packed clauses with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately provides the differentiating detail, earning the highest score for efficiency.

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?

Given that this is a zero-parameter, simple listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete for the agent's needs. It states what the tool returns, when to use it, and how it differs from a sibling. No additional context is required.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). No parameter details are needed, and the description adds no parameter meaning. Per the rubric's zero-parameter baseline, a score of 4 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 a specific verb+resource combination: it lists all VPS of the account with project association. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'list_servers' by noting it includes the 'project_id' field, making the purpose unambiguous and uniquely identifiable.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool 'list_servers' and states the key differentiator: this tool returns 'project_id' for each server. This directly tells the agent when to use this tool over the sibling, which is exactly what usage guidelines should do.

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