list_bare_metal_servers_by_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a listing operation with filtering, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety, permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, a dedicated 'Args' section with an example, and a 'Returns' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

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 (single parameter, read-only operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return type, but misses behavioral details like pagination, error handling, or performance characteristics that would help an agent use it effectively in varied contexts.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'status' by providing examples ('e.g., 'active', 'stopped', 'installing''), which clarifies acceptable values beyond the schema's basic string type. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates well, though it doesn't specify whether the list of statuses is exhaustive or case-sensitive.

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 purpose: 'List bare metal servers by status.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('bare metal servers'), and filtering criteria ('by status'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_bare_metal_servers' or 'list_by_status', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific filtered listing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_bare_metal_servers' (unfiltered listing) or 'list_by_status' (generic status filtering), nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or optimal use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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