list_plex_select_server

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose what data is returned (e.g., a list of servers, authentication status), whether it requires prior OAuth setup, or any side effects. Since annotations carry the safety profile, the description contributes nothing extra; but it does not contradict the annotations, so a score of 2 is warranted for the lack of added value.

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 short, which is efficient, but it is also vague and fails to add meaningful information. It essentially repeats the tool name and endpoint, providing no explanatory value. The structure is minimal but not informative, so it meets the bare minimum for conciseness but lacks substance.

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?

Even though there are no parameters and an output schema exists (though not provided in detail), the description lacks critical context for a tool that interacts with Plex server selection. It does not explain the tool's purpose, the data it returns, or any connection to the OAuth flow. Given the tool's apparent role in Plex integrationaises, this is under-specified for an agent to use 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?

There are no parameters and no required parameters, so there is nothing to document. The schema is trivially empty, and the description need not explain parameters. Baseline of 4 is appropriate because with zero parameters, the description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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 merely restates the HTTP method and endpoint ('GET plex/select-server. GET /api/plex/select-server') without explaining what the tool does, what it returns, or why an agent would call it. It does not describe the resource or the action beyond the tautological name. The name suggests 'list Plex select server', but the purpose is not explained; it's ambiguous whether it lists servers available for selection or something else.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., having an authenticated Plex session), nor does it distinguish itself from the many sibling tools such as list_plex_oauth_servers or list_plex_oauth_libraries. An agent has no basis for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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