server_info

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

Annotations indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: it requires environment variables for tokens and cautions about API rate limiting. This extra context is valuable and goes beyond the annotations.

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 concise at five sentences, with a clear front-loaded purpose statement and logical flow: actions, prerequisites, caveats, alternatives. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without wasted 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 the tool complexity (5 parameters, 1 required, output schema exists), the description covers actions, prerequisites, rate limiting, and a sibling alternative. It lacks explicit mention of error behavior but is otherwise complete for effective tool 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 schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying the default for 'mode', providing region examples, and explaining when parameters are required for specific actions. This supplements the schema without redundancy.

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 the tool retrieves information about Kastell-managed servers and enumerates four distinct actions (list, status, health, sizes). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'server_fleet' by specifying when to use that alternative for fleet-wide health and audit scores.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it warns against repeated calls to avoid rate limiting, states the prerequisite of provider API tokens, and directs the agent to use 'server_fleet' for fleet-wide queries. It does not cover all exclusions but gives clear context for proper usage.

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