get_server

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates this is a safe read operation, and the description aligns with that. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as return shape, depth behavior, or any side effects, but also does not contradict it.

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, focused sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It states the operation directly and efficiently.

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 read-only get operation with a well-specified schema and a readOnlyHint, the description is minimally viable. However, it provides no details about the return value, the role of the datacenter_id, or the meaning of the optional depth parameter, leaving some context undisclosed.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema carries the needed parameter semantics. The description adds no additional meaning to the 'datacenter_id' or 'server_id' parameters beyond the generic 'specific server' idea.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource ('Get details of a specific server') that clearly identifies a single-server retrieval operation. It distinguishes itself from list_servers and related per-server tools like get_server_gpu, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate those sibling tools.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_servers or get_server_remote_console. The phrase 'specific server' implies single-resource retrieval, but there is no stated when/when-not logic or alternative tool naming.

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