federation_list_servers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that only operator-ratified servers are included, that env var values are never returned (only names), and that unratified servers are never shown. This adds meaningful behavioral constraints, though it omits details about authentication or error handling.

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 two well-structured sentences that front-load the primary function, then add critical behavioral caveats in a readable order. No wasted words.

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 list tool, the description covers return fields and the ratification-scoping rule, but the unexplained required app_id parameter is a significant gap that prevents the agent from invoking the tool correctly. The pointer to federation_discover partially mitigates the omission, but not the missing parameter semantics.

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 declares app_id as required but provides no description, and the description never mentions app_id or how it scopes the listing. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no idea what value to supply or what effect it has, making this parameter completely opaque.

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 lists operator-ratified downstream MCP servers, enumerates the returned fields (id, name, launch command/args, env var NAMES, ratifier and date), and distinguishes itself from federation_discover by explicitly excluding unratified servers.

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 tells readers that connecting requires ratification first and points to federation_discover, implying this tool is for viewing already-ratified servers. It doesn't fully spell out when to choose this over federation_discover, but the guidance is clear enough for a list-vs-discovery distinction.

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