get_server_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals an important behavior: lazy connection to the server if not already connected. It also adds a token-cost hint (~100 tokens), which goes beyond the schema. It does not detail auth requirements or error behavior, but the read-only nature of 'Get' is apparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose and key behavioral note. The second sentence earns its place by giving strategic invocation guidance.

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 the simple 3-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, lazy-connect behavior, and the optimal calling strategy. It could mention that server names likely come from list_servers or clarify auth prerequisites, but these are minor gaps for such a focused discovery tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining summary_only's purpose ('cheap discovery') and the workflow of fetching full schemas for specific tools. This adds real semantic value over the structured parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get tools from a specific server.' It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_servers, call_tool, and search, so an agent can identify this as the tool-discovery operation without opening the schema.

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 gives actionable usage guidance: use summary_only=true for cheap discovery, then fetch full schemas for specific tools. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings, but the intended workflow is clear and appropriately scoped.

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