list_servers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful, non-obvious trait — "Never returns credentials" — but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, how large the result can get, or whether the inventory is queried live or cached.

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, no filler, with the core action first and the security guarantee placed last where it reads as a guarantee rather than the main point. Every clause earns its place.

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 no explanation, and the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description covers the action, the filter, and one behavioral caveat; only the read-only nature of the call is left implicit, which is minor for a list 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 coverage is 100% for the single optional tag parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning fully. The description confirms the tag filter exists but adds no syntax, matching rules, or case-sensitivity detail beyond it. Baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("List servers known to the inventory") and names the supported filter, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closest sibling, cisco_inventory, which an agent could plausibly confuse for a server listing.

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?

"Optionally filtered by tag" implies the common usage pattern, and the schema's own description clarifies that omitting the tag returns everything. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when a different sibling (e.g. cisco_inventory) would be the better pick.

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