hcloud_get_server_raw

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful failure mode that the server must exist in the Project, but says nothing about response format, error behavior for missing IDs, or what makes the returned payload "raw".

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 short sentences with the object being returned stated up front and no wasted prose. It is not padded, though the second sentence carries little unique information beyond the precondition.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the essentials for invocation are present. What's missing is the raw-versus-normalized distinction from `hcloud_get_server`, which is the only real complexity in this tool's identity and would change an agent's selection.

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?

A single `id` parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it (int64, min 1, example 42). The description adds nothing beyond it, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

"Get a Server / Returns a specific Server object" states a clear verb and resource, and adds the precondition that the server must exist in the Project. It never distinguishes this from the sibling `hcloud_get_server` or explains what the `_raw` suffix means, which is the key ambiguity here.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus `hcloud_get_server`, `hcloud_list_servers_raw`, or `hcloud_get_server_metrics`, all of which are plausible alternatives for the same agent intent. The only guidance is an existence precondition, which is a constraint, not usage direction.

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