Список серверов

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It indicates a read-only operation via 'GET /api/v1/servers' and lists the returned fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, authentication requirements, or potential error responses, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose, the return fields, and the endpoint. It is front-loaded and contains zero unnecessary words.

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 parameterless list tool without an output schema, the description provides the essential return fields and the HTTP endpoint. It does not fully specify the response structure or pagination, but these are not critical for a basic list operation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 there is nothing to explain beyond the schema. The description adds no parameter details, but the baseline for 0-param tools is 4 because no parameter information is needed. This 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 clearly states it lists all cloud servers of the account, naming the specific return fields (id, name, status, IP, configuration). It includes the endpoint GET /api/v1/servers, and the verb 'list' is implied through 'Все облачные серверы' (all cloud servers), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_server, create_server, and delete_server.

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 makes it clear this tool is for listing all servers, which is sufficient context for basic usage. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the contrast with get_server (single server) is implicit in the naming and scope. No exclusions or alternatives are stated, so it lacks the 'when-not' clarity of the highest score.

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