Выделенные серверы проекта

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

The description 'Список' (list) implies a read-only operation, but the annotation readOnlyHint is false, creating a direct contradiction. Additionally, no other behavioral aspects are disclosed, such as pagination, return format, or authorization requirements.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It earns a high score for efficiency, though it could have included more useful context without much added bulk.

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 one parameter and no output schema, but the description lacks critical context such as differentiation from list_all_project_dedicated and any information about the response. The missing sibling differentiation makes it incomplete for an agent to decide correctly.

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 schema already covers project_id with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'в указанном проекте' only reaffirms the schema's meaning without adding any new semantic nuance.

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 'list' and the resource 'dedicated servers' scoped to the specified project. It is specific but does not distinguish from the sibling tool list_all_project_dedicated, so it loses a point for lack of sibling differentiation.

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 list_all_project_dedicated or other list tools. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without enough context for proper selection.

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