sentinel_list_servers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description indicates this is a read-only listing operation by its verb ('List'), but it doesn't disclose what 'connection status' means, whether this triggers any connection checks (potentially a non-trivial network operation), or what the return format looks like. With zero annotation coverage, more explicit behavioral detail would be warranted.

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?

A single sentence, zero wasted words, and front-loaded with the purpose. It efficiently conveys action, scope, and result. There is nothing to trim.

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?

This is a simple list operation with no parameters and no output schema, so it doesn't need extensive documentation. However, without annotations or an output schema to fall back on, some mention of what fields/status values the listing contains would improve completeness. The description is adequate but leaves the returned status vocabulary to the agent's imagination.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema does no work and the description isn't required to explain anything. With 0 params the baseline is 4, and the description properly focuses on what it returns rather than parameters, keeping expectations clear about the no-input nature of the call.

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') with a clear resource ('registered downstream MCP servers') and states the scope ('all'). It also adds connection status as the informational payload. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like sentinel_list_tools, but the resource is specific enough (servers vs tools) that confusion is unlikely.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like sentinel_list_tools and sentinel_get_dashboard_stats, an agent might wonder which listing tool to choose. However, the resource name (servers) makes the intent fairly unambiguous, and there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues provided.

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