Request Server Console

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context: the URL is valid for a limited time. This goes beyond annotations, though it does not fully disclose potential side effects or auth requirements.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the action and result, the second adds a key detail. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool returns (URL and credentials) and its time-limited nature. Slight gap: missing mention of server state requirements (e.g., powered on).

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 covers the only parameter 'id' with full description 'Server ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool requests a noVNC WebSocket URL and credentials for server console access, with a specific verb 'request' and resource 'console'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'hetzner_get_server' or 'hetzner_attach_iso' by specifying console access.

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 usage for accessing server console but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., server must be running) are mentioned.

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