server_list

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

没有任何注解，因此描述承担行为说明责任。动词“列出”隐含只读操作，且“可连接的”增加了筛选条件，但描述未说明返回格式、是否会真的检测连接可用性、是否需要权限，以及是否可能因网络检查而变慢。对于简单列表工具已提供基本行为，但还不够充分。

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?

描述是一句完整且无冗余的中文单句，核心信息动作和对象都在句首，没有任何浪费篇幅的内容，清晰易读。

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?

工具本身较简单且无参数，描述给出了列取范围和连接性条件，但缺少使用场景指引、输出形态说明以及与其他服务器相关工具的区分。对于代理选择工具而言，基本可用但仍有明确缺口。

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?

工具没有参数，输入模式为空，因此不存在参数语义负担。按基线规则，0 参数工具应给予 4 分，描述无需补充参数说明。

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?

描述明确使用动词“列出”并明确指出对象是“当前 MCP 配置中所有可连接的服务器”，资源范围和动作都很清晰。与同组的 server_info（单服务器信息）相比，通过“所有”明确了枚举型操作，能够有效区分用途。

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?

描述只说明工具能做什么，没有说明何时应该使用它、何时不应该使用它，也没有提及替代工具如 server_info 或 server_exec 的选择条件。调用场景完全依赖名称和用户推断，缺乏显式指引。

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