GET any XServer API path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's mention of 'read-only GET' and 'Writes not supported' adds little behavioral insight beyond what is already provided. The description does not contradict annotations, but it does not add significant new behavioral 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, and every sentence is necessary. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, strong annotations), the description provides all essential context: base URL, relative path, example, scope (uncovered endpoints), and restrictions (no writes). It is fully adequate for the tool's purpose.

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%, covering both 'path' and 'query' parameters. The description adds valuable context: the path is 'relative to the API base (https://api.xserver.ne.jp/v1)', with an example path '/server/xs123456.xsrv.jp/cron'. It also clarifies that query parameters are optional and that the path can accept a full URL. This meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 issues 'an arbitrary read-only GET against the XServer API' for endpoints not covered by other tools. It uses specific action verb 'issue' and resource 'read-only GET', and distinguishes from sibling tools by stating 'when a specific endpoint is not covered by the other tools'.

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 explicitly provides guidance: 'Use this when a specific endpoint is not covered by the other tools.' It also specifies what not to use it for: 'Writes (POST/PUT/DELETE) are not supported by this server.' This gives clear context and alternatives.

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