list_servers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the function and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, returns paginated data, or has any side effects. For a tool that lists configuration, the agent is left without explicit safety or state-change context.

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. The primary action is stated first, and the optional filter is added in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 one optional parameter, the description covers the core function but lacks context about return value shape (no output schema exists), whether authentication is needed, or whether this is a safe read-only operation. Given the absence of annotations, a complete description should at least hint at these aspects.

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% (filter is fully described as 'Optional substring to filter on name, description, or tags.'). The description essentially restates the parameter without adding extra semantics like default behavior, match case-sensitivity, or wildcard support. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured MCP servers'), and clarifies the fields returned (descriptions and tags). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'search' or 'recommend_servers' by framing it as an enumeration of configured servers, not a search or recommendation.

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 usage for listing servers and optionally filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., 'use search for semantic queries' or 'use get_server_tools to inspect a specific server'). There is no exclusion or conditional guidance, leaving some inference to the agent.

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