get_server_resources

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

The description 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but no explicit statement confirms non-destructiveness or other behavioral traits. With no annotations, the agent must assume safety, but the description does not fully compensate for the lack of annotations by detailing auth needs or potential side effects.

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 short sentence, which is concise and free of fluff. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as listing the resource types measured.

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 simple input schema (one required param) and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain what 'resource usage' encompasses or how the output is structured, which is adequate for basic use but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 only parameter 'uuid' is fully described in the input schema as 'Server UUID', achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning, so a baseline score of 3 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 'Get server resource usage' clearly indicates the tool retrieves resource usage data for a server. While it is specific enough to distinguish from general server info (e.g., get_server), it lacks details on the types of resources (CPU, memory, disk) which would improve clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_resources or get_server. The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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