XServer server status

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; description adds specific resource metrics (disk quota, file counts, domain counts) not in schema, providing helpful behavioral context beyond 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?

Two sentences: first defines what the tool does, second gives concrete query examples. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema exists, but description lists returned data categories (metadata, disk usage, counts of various items). Missing exact output format but sufficient for agent to infer structure.

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%, but description adds value by explaining default resolution: 'Defaults to XSERVER_SERVERNAME, or is resolved from GET /me.' This clarifies optional parameter behavior beyond 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 it fetches server status with metadata and resource usage. The title corroborates. It distinguishes from sibling tools like xserver_endpoints or xserver_account_info by specifying health/resource monitoring.

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?

Provides explicit example queries ('how is my server doing', 'how much disk is left') indicating appropriate use cases. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but examples are clear enough.

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