get_users_settings_plex_servers_by_server_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context—it doesn't mention authentication, rate limits, or what happens if the server_id is invalid. It is consistent with the read-only annotation, but contributes no extra transparency beyond annotations.

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 concise: a purpose statement, the endpoint, and a single argument line. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids filler. Including the HTTP path is useful for developers, though slightly redundant with the tool name. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool returns at a high level (accounts and libraries) but omits context like prerequisites (e.g., the server must be connected) or error behavior. For a simple GET with annotations, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 only provides the property title 'Server Id' with no description. The description text adds 'server_id: The Plex server machine identifier,' which clarifies the meaning beyond the bare title. This is helpful but minimal; it doesn't explain how to obtain the identifier or its format. Since schema coverage is 0%, this description partially compensates, but not richly.

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 action: 'Get Plex server accounts and libraries.' It names a specific resource (Plex server accounts/libraries) and the verb 'Get' is precise. The endpoint path with {server_id} clarifies it targets a single server, distinguishing it from siblings like list_users_settings_plex_servers, though it doesn't explicitly name that alternative.

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 implies usage: you call this when you have a specific server_id to retrieve its accounts and libraries. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus listing all servers (list_users_settings_plex_servers) or any alternatives. The usage is implied by the parameter but not explicitly contrasted.

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