list_server_gpus

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that—no mention of pagination, filter semantics, depth control, or potential side effects. It is a mere restatement of the purpose without transparency on how the listing behaves.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 operation with readOnlyHint and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It captures the core purpose, though it does not mention output format or pagination (no output schema provided). Given the tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (depth, filters, server_id, datacenter_id). The description itself adds no extra meaning or context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action (list), resource (GPUs), and scope (attached to a specific server). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_server_gpu (singular GPU) and list_server_volumes (different resource type).

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 the tool is used when you need to enumerate GPUs for a given server, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over similar tools (e.g., get_server_gpu for a specific GPU) or exclude cases. The context 'attached to a specific server' is clear, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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