check_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Look up' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of 'full trust grade, dimensions, and findings' indicates the kind of data returned. However, it does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, or any limitations, which would be valuable for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without wasted words. Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description is adequate. It specifies the input (slug) and the nature of the output (trust grade, dimensions, findings). The output schema presumably details return fields, so the description needn't repeat them. Minor gaps like prerequisites (e.g., slug must exist in list_servers) are implied.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by stating 'by slug', clarifying that the 'slug' parameter is the identifier for selecting a single server. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property name, though it doesn't specify slug format or examples.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'look up' and identifies the exact resource: 'full trust grade, dimensions, and findings for one server by slug'. This clearly distinguishes it from list_servers, which presumably lists all servers, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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 implies usage: use when you need detailed information for a specific server identified by slug, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_servers. Context signals provide sibling tool names but the description itself lacks exclusions.

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