get_server_remote_console

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns a URL, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether the server must be running, whether the URL is temporary, or any error conditions. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description contributes minimal extra context beyond the purpose.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 getter with two required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return value (a URL). It does not mention error cases or prerequisites, but the tool's simplicity and the schema's full parameter documentation make the description sufficient for basic invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (server_id, datacenter_id, depth) already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('remote console URL') with a clear scope ('for a specific server'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_server (which retrieves server details) and get_server_gpu (GPU-specific info).

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 when the remote console URL is needed for a server, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives. It is a simple getter, but the lack of any differentiation from the many sibling get_* tools leaves the agent to infer context.

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