servers_list

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description does add one behavioral fact beyond them — that in an unconfigured state the call returns a configuration error rather than data — but it says nothing about the success path or failure modes beyond that.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, so it is not bloated. However, what it front-loads is a precondition/error message rather than the tool's function, which wastes the prime opening position on secondary 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?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description should say what is returned when configuration is present; it never does. With sibling tools doctor and project_info in play, this definition is not complete enough to guide correct invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description neither helps nor hurts on parameter meaning.

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 name and title say servers_list, but the description never states that the tool lists servers or what it returns in a working state. Instead it only describes an error condition ('No configuration is loaded. Returns the configuration error.'), so an agent cannot tell the tool's actual purpose from the description alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the siblings project_info or doctor, and it doesn't say whether the config error is a precondition to fix or an expected output. At best it implies the tool is unusable until configuration is loaded, but that is left implicit.

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