list_bare_metal_servers_by_region

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a listing operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether it returns all servers or a subset. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic operation.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose statement, parameter explanation, and return value. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and uses clear section headers (Args, Returns). No wasted words, though the structure could be slightly more polished.

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 read operation with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks important context. No annotations exist to provide safety/behavioral hints, and the description doesn't explain return format, pagination, or error handling. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single 'region' parameter, the description compensates by providing an example value ('ewr', 'lax') and clarifying it's a 'region code'. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare string type in the schema, though it doesn't provide a full list of valid region codes.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'bare metal servers', specifying the scope 'in a specific region'. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_bare_metal_servers' by adding region filtering, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other region-filtering tools like 'list_by_region' or 'find_by_region'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_bare_metal_servers' (unfiltered), 'list_bare_metal_servers_by_status' (status-filtered), or other region-based listing tools. The description implies region filtering but doesn't provide explicit usage context or exclusions.

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