Информация о сервере

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is an HTTP GET, implying a read-only, non-destructive action. However, it does not detail whether permissions are required, side effects, or the structure of the returned information. The GET method is some useful transparency, but overall the description is thin on behavioral specifics.

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 two short sentences: a summary and the REST endpoint. Both earn their place—the summary identifies what the tool does, and the endpoint gives explicit URL structure. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no fluff.

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 1-parameter read tool, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose and identifies the resource via the endpoint. It does not explain return format or possible errors, but given the absence of an output schema, some detail might be expected. Still, the tool's complexity is low, and the description is adequate for selection and 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'server_id' with description 'ID сервера'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. No extra syntax, constraints, or examples are provided.

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 'Detailed information about one server' (Russian: 'Подробная информация об одном сервере'), using a specific verb 'get' and resource 'server'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_servers (plural) and get_server_logs by explicitly referencing a single server. The endpoint 'GET /api/v1/servers/{id}' reinforces the scope.

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?

Usage context is implied: the description indicates this is for retrieving information about a specific server, so an agent would infer to use it when it has a server_id. However, there is no explicit exclusions or comparison with alternatives (e.g., 'use list_servers to get all servers'). The guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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