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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it warns of hardware movement, explains that observable commands are awaited until completion or timeout_s, that intermediate responses are collected, and that failures surface as ok=false with a SiLA error identifier and message. It does not disclose permission/auth requirements, whether a running command can be cancelled, or idempotency, which keeps it off a 5.

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 safety warning is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a compact block covering parameters, observable-command lifecycle, and error shape. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 5-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, the description supplies the risk profile, async/observable semantics, timeout behavior, and error contract, which is substantial coverage. An output schema exists so return-format explanation is not required, but the lack of any note on permissions or command cancellation leaves a small gap on a hardware-affecting operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it does for the hardest parameter: `parameters` is explained as an identifier→value map with a concrete example, `feature` gets a precise disambiguation rule, and `timeout_s` is tied to observable-command waiting. Only `server` (connection name vs. address) and `command` (identifier format) remain undefined beyond their names.

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 ("Run a SiLA 2 command and return its responses") and immediately distinguishes itself from the read-only siblings (list_servers, describe_server, get_property) by being the invocation path. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 opening "MAY MOVE HARDWARE" gives an explicit risk condition, and "`feature` is needed only when two features of the server share the command name" states a precise condition for the optional parameter. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use-vs-siblings or when-not-to-use rule, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does state "Read-only" plus the kind of metadata returned, including observable status, parameters, responses, intermediate responses, defined errors, and FDL descriptions. It does not discuss permissions, limits, or failure modes, but the core behavioral profile is clear.

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 short, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds relevant information. The parenthetical enumeration is dense but purposeful.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description usefully summarizes returned metadata. However, for a tool whose only input is an undocumented `server` string, it should explain how to identify that server, likely via list_servers.

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?

There is one required `server` parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only says "one server" and does not explain whether this is a name, ID, or how to obtain it from list_servers, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource: "Describe one server's features." It enumerates the returned content (commands, parameters, responses, errors, properties), so the agent can distinguish this inspection tool from list_servers and call_command.

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?

It explicitly says to use the tool "to learn parameter names and types before call_command," giving clear operational guidance. It does not mention when to use list_servers or get_property instead, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is read-only and returns a one-time snapshot, but it omits error behavior, permission requirements, and other operational context.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and uses the remaining sentences for essential qualifiers. There is no wasted 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?

The output schema covers return values, and the description covers the read-only one-time nature of the call. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it leaves parameter semantics and error behavior underspecified for an agent relying on the description alone.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for all three parameters. It only explains the conditional role of `feature` and adds no meaning for `server` or `property` beyond their names.

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: read a property's current value once, including observable properties. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like describe_server or call_command.

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?

It implies one-time reading rather than subscription and explains the conditional need for `feature`. However, it offers no explicit comparison to sibling tools or guidance on when to use this instead of listing or describing servers.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full load and does so meaningfully: it discloses read-only semantics, that it actively attempts connections, and that a non-answering server is reported with its error rather than aborting the call. This partial-failure contract is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs and cannot infer from the schema.

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, purpose front-loaded, with the failure-tolerance caveat immediately after. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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-value shape need not be described. The description covers the one non-obvious aspect — active connection probing with per-server error reporting — leaving little an agent would still need to ask about.

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; the baseline for zero-param tools applies.

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 (list configured SiLA 2 servers) plus the extra scope of reporting live reachability. It implicitly contrasts with describe_server by emphasizing liveness rather than detail, though it never names that sibling.

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 read-only and connect-attempt framing implies discovery/inventory usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. describe_server for details on a specific server).

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