List Servings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by summarizing the payload (replica counts, status, endpoint_url, hourly price in USD) and explaining cross-tool resolution of the workspace id. It does not mention pagination behavior, even though limit/cursor exist.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, payload second, parameter semantics third. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what it lists, what it returns) is front-loaded.

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?

With a read-only tool, full annotation coverage, and an output schema that documents return values, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. The only meaningful omission is pagination guidance for limit/cursor, which the output schema and conventions partially imply.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains `workspace` thoroughly (id source, 'all', omit-if-single) and implies `serving` via 'show one by serving_id', though that name does not match the actual schema key `serving`. `limit` and `cursor` are never mentioned, leaving the pagination parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the serverless model deployments (servings)') and covers both modes: bulk listing in a workspace or fetching a single item by id. An agent can immediately distinguish this read tool from the sibling mutations (deploy_serving, scale_serving, delete_serving).

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance for the workspace parameter ('id from the workspaces tool', 'pass "all" for every workspace', 'omit it if the user has only one'), which resolves the main ambiguity in calling this tool. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as querying pods or model_sets, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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