bare_metal_get_bare_metal_server

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get details'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention any other behavioral traits like authentication, rate limits, or failure modes. It stays at the obvious level.

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 compact (three sentences), front-loads the main purpose, and cleanly separates Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff. It is structured for quick scanning.

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?

For a simple get-by-identifier tool, the description covers the essential usage. Since an output schema is present, the return format is already defined, so the description isn't required to explain it. The identifier resolution guidance rounds out the context. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from similar 'get' siblings, which is partially covered by purpose clarity.

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 provides only the type (string) for server_identifier with zero description coverage. The description compensates by explaining the accepted formats: label, hostname, or ID. This goes beyond the schema and tells the agent how to construct valid identifiers, adding meaningful value.

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 opens with 'Get details of a specific bare metal server', which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling list and summary tools by specifying 'specific' and 'details', making its scope unambiguous.

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?

It provides guidance on identifier resolution ('use server label, hostname, or UUID'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like bare_metal_get_bare_metal_server_summary or bare_metal_get_bare_metal_bandwidth. The context implies the distinction but doesn't state it.

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