emule_list_servers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of communicating behavior. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation moderate transparency, and 'servers known to eMule' adds useful context about scope. However, it does not clarify whether this is a cached/local list, whether it triggers any network activity, or how the state field is represented.

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, direct sentence with no filler or repetition. The verb and resource appear first, followed by the key output attributes, 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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is largely complete: it states the resource and the fields returned. It is slightly incomplete because there is no output schema and the meaning of 'state' is left undefined, but the low complexity keeps the risk low.

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)Skip, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description still names the expected output fields, which is useful in the absence of an output schema.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('servers known to eMule'), and enumerates the returned fields: address, state, users and priority. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like emule_list_downloads by the resource type, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as emule_status or emule_list_downloads. The intended use is implied by 'List servers', but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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