Список сервисов для подключения сетевого диска

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('returns a list'), but the annotation readOnlyHint=false indicates that the tool may modify state. This is a direct contradiction between the description and the annotation, meriting a score of 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a clear usage pointer. There is no wasted information, making it appropriately concise.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return concept (list of services/servers with resource_id) and the typical usage flow. It could mention response structure but is sufficient for the low complexity.

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; the schema is empty and the description adds no parameter information. Per the rubric, a 0-param tool gets a baseline of 4.

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 returns a list of services (servers) that can be used for connecting a network drive, using a specific verb ('returns') and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly tying it to the mount_network_drive workflow.

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 instructs to use this tool before mount_network_drive to discover valid resource_id values, providing a clear 'when to use' context. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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