Show server scope

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context with "Does not contact the cloud," telling the agent this is a cheap local call that cannot fail on auth or network — useful information annotations do not convey.

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, and the payload statement comes before the operational caveat and the call-ordering advice. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description correctly stops short of that. The only soft spot is that bare terms like "mode" and "limits" are left for the output schema to define, but for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool this is essentially 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The prose correctly focuses on what the call returns rather than inventing input semantics.

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?

Uses a concrete verb ("Show") and enumerates the exact scope attributes returned: mode, allowed projects, limits, and credential status. This clearly separates it from the resource-oriented siblings (list_subnets, get_server, etc.), though it never explicitly names itself as the server-level diagnostic counterpart to them.

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?

"Call it first" is an explicit, actionable ordering instruction that tells the agent when to reach for this tool relative to everything else. No exclusion cases are stated, but none are plausible here since no sibling overlaps in function.

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