get_server_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds one behavioral trait: returns only permitted tools (filtered by policy). It does not cover other aspects like error handling, prerequisites (e.g., server must exist), or whether results are 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?

The description is extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately connect to the next step. Each sentence adds value without fluff.

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 description explains the tool's output (tool definitions) and how to use them with 'execute_tool'. It is missing a mention of the prerequisite relationship with 'list_servers' (to get server names). However, for a discovery tool with an output schema, it is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not elaborate on 'agent_id', 'names', 'pattern', or 'max_schema_tokens'.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: discover tools available on a downstream MCP server. It specifies the resource ('tools') and the action ('discover'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'execute_tool' (which executes) and 'list_servers' (which lists servers).

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 description indicates when to use the tool (when needing to know available tools) and connects it to the sibling 'execute_tool' for the next step. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., if tools are already known).

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