GetAllMountServers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral information. It implies a read-only operation through 'Get', but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (despite skip/limit parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes a 'mount server'. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist, but fails to provide necessary operational context.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the main action and includes useful context about the servers' purpose. Every word earns its place in this compact formulation.

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 tool with 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data structure is returned, how results are ordered, whether the operation is paginated, or what authentication is required. The description provides basic purpose but leaves critical operational details unspecified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters (skip and limit), the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. It doesn't explain what skip/limit mean in this context, their expected values, or how they affect the 'Get all' operation. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all mount servers'), and specifies their purpose ('used for file restore and instant recovery operations'). It distinguishes this from other mount-related tools by focusing on retrieval rather than configuration or management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'GetMountServer' which appears to fetch a single mount 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or compare it to similar tools like 'GetMountServer' (single server) or 'GetDefaultMountServer'. The context of 'file restore and instant recovery operations' is helpful but doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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