List Servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the list of returned fields, which is useful, but it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or any other behavioral caveats beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with a single clear sentence followed by a bulleted list of return fields. Every line adds value and there is no redundant text.

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 list tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description adequately explains the purpose and lists the key return fields. It could mention pagination or response format details, but these are either implied or covered by the schema, so it is nearly complete.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (label_selector and response_format) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already includes.

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 uses a specific verb 'list' with a clear resource 'servers' and scope 'in the project', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'hetzner_get_server' (single server) and 'hetzner_list_server_types' (different resource).

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?

The description implies usage for listing all servers but does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like 'hetzner_get_server' for individual servers. No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided, making the guidance only implicit.

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