Map infrastructure and costs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares 'Read-only', discloses that it starts a local server at http://127.0.0.1:43390 and returns its URL (a side effect worth knowing), and notes the token scoping. It stops short of stating auth prerequisites or whether the local server persists after the call.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the safety hint ('Read-only') and ending with the token caveat. Each sentence carries a distinct fact; only the URL/serve sentence could be marginally tighter.

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 and no annotations, so the description must cover return behavior — it does by naming the returned URL and the report contents. It is adequate for a 5-param, 0-required read tool, though it omits any auth/permission detail.

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 80%, so the schema already documents demo, serve, target, and mermaid. The description adds the practical scoping semantics for target ('one workspace or project') but says nothing about demo, mermaid, or refresh, matching the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 ('Maps every configured Hetzner project and account') and enumerates the outputs (cost per project/resource, top cost drivers, idle billed resources), which clearly separates it from the cloud_list_*/robot_list_* siblings and from pricing lookups.

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?

'Pass target to map one workspace or project' gives a usage cue for scoping, but does not distinguish this tool from adjacent cost/audit siblings such as infra_audit, spend_history, find_capacity, or cloud_get_pricing. No explicit when-not guidance.

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