Серверы проекта

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

This is an annotation contradiction. The description describes a list (read) operation, yet annotations set readOnlyHint=false, implying possible state changes. This directly contradicts the semantics of listing and provides misleading behavioral guidance. No other behavioral context (e.g., permission requirements, side effects) is given.

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, well-front-loaded sentence that does exactly what is needed—states the resource and scope. No filler or redundant explanation. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.

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?

While the simple nature of the tool reduces complexity, the description omits critical details: no mention of response format or whether any pagination/filtering exists. More importantly, the annotation contradiction (readOnlyHint=false) is not clarified, leaving users confused about side effects. The lack of an output schema makes this a clear gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the only parameter, project_id, is fully described with type and required status. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'List VPS servers in the specified project' clearly identifies the action (list), resource (VPS servers), and scope (within a given project). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_all_project_servers by explicitly narrowing to a specified project.

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 implies strong usage context: call this tool when you need VPS servers belonging to a specific project (project_id). It does not explicitly exclude or compare to alternatives such as list_all_project_servers, but the scoping phrase 'in the specified project' makes the intended use case clear enough.

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