list_servers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'List all' strongly implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose what 'configured' means, whether any connection state is required, or how results are returned. It adds basic behavioral context but no deeper detail.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and the exact scope. There is no wasted text or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple no-argument listing tool, so the description is largely sufficient for an agent to know when and why to call it. The only gap is the lack of an output schema or description of the return format, but for a server listing it is reasonably inferable. It is not as rich as the HIGH calibration example, but it does not need to be given its low complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema already covers everything (empty properties object, 100% coverage). The description adds no parameter meaning because there are no parameters to explain, which is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all configured MySQL servers.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_tables and show_databases by specifying the resource type (MySQL servers) and scope ('all configured'). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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 usage is implied by the description: call this when you need the list of configured MySQL servers. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but the guidance is minimal.

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