get_server_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: returns an empty list when no logs exist, gracefully handles varied log formats, and defines the exact output structure for both markdown and JSON responses.

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 long but well-organized with sections (WHEN TO USE, WHAT THIS TOOL SHOWS, WORKFLOW, USE CASES, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first line. Minor redundancy exists (the 'use first' guidance appears twice), but overall structure makes the length acceptable.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values, including a JSON schema for both markdown and json formats, examples, and error handling (empty list, malformed log files). Combined with the annotations and parameter descriptions, an agent has all necessary information to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes further by explaining how 'include_stats' conditionally includes fields (total_errors, recent_error_count) and providing examples of parameter usage, adding practical meaning beyond the schema text.

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 opens with 'List Available MCP Servers', a specific verb+resource phrase, and expands on exactly what is listed (server names, error counts, recent errors, log paths). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning this as the first step before invoking get_recent_errors or get_error_details.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section provides concrete scenarios (e.g., 'tool failed but you don't know the exact server_name') and an explicit workflow that names the sibling tool get_recent_errors as the next step. This offers clear guidance on when this tool should be used over alternatives.

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