Get server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on not-found behavior, project scoping, or visibility constraints — so it earns little credit on top of the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is an appropriate shape for a simple getter. It is terse rather than padded, though the brevity costs it in other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description leaves the project_id scoping behavior and the ID's provenance unexplained, which is a real gap for a lookup tool in a multi-project API.

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 coverage is only 50%: project_id has a description pointing at get_scope, while server_id has none. The phrase "by ID" weakly confirms server_id is the identifier but gives no format, source, or scoping detail, and says nothing about the optional project_id parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get one server") and the retrieval key ("by ID"), which cleanly separates it from list_servers and other siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the singular-vs-list distinction is unambiguous from the name and text.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_servers, nor any precondition such as needing a server ID obtained from a prior list call. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the tool name.

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