hcloud_get_server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that this is a hand-tuned wrapper rather than the generated tool, which is useful. However it never says what happens when neither id nor name is supplied (zero required params) or which key wins if both are given, leaving real call-time ambiguity.

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, no filler, with the lookup capability front-loaded and the sibling routing second. Every clause carries information the schema and annotations do not.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only meaningful gap is the unresolved zero-required-parameter case (is at least one of id/name mandatory, and what if both are passed).

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 the load, and it does add meaning: the name must be an *exact* match and the two keys are presented as alternatives. It still omits mutual exclusivity/precedence rules and any statement that at least one parameter is required.

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 (fetch a single Hetzner Cloud server) plus the two accepted lookup keys. It also names the sibling it supersedes, hcloud_get_server_raw, so the tool is distinguishable among the many hcloud_get_* siblings without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to hcloud_get_server_raw when the generated, id-only behavior is desired, which is a real alternative-selection rule. It stops short of telling the agent when to prefer listing (hcloud_list_servers) over a direct fetch, so there is no full when/when-not matrix.

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