server_compare

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

Description discloses caching behavior ('Uses cached snapshots when available, falls back to live SSH audit') and output modes. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, so description adds valuable context beyond what annotations say.

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?

Four short, focused sentences. Front-loaded with core purpose, then specifics. No 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?

Given output schema exists and annotations are rich, description covers key behaviors (caching, fallback, output modes) and prerequisite. Could mention error handling or unregistered servers, but current info is sufficient for typical use.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% so baseline 3. Description adds meaning by explaining that default output is category-level and detail enables check-level diff, which clarifies how 'detail' affects results. It also implies behavior of 'fresh' via caching mention.

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 'Compare two servers side-by-side' and specifies the resource (two servers). It distinguishes default and detail modes, and implies comparison vs sibling tools like server_audit (single server) or server_fix.

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 when to use: when comparing two servers. It mentions prerequisite 'Requires two registered servers'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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