list_servers

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

Without annotations, the description partially covers behavior by stating it does not reveal secrets, which implies safe read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, leaving some ambiguity. The statement about active/default is helpful but not a full behavioral disclosure.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The action verb 'List' front-loads the purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value (what is listed, how to use the results, and a safety note).

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and usage context. It explains the output contents and how to leverage them, which is complete for a list tool of this nature.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as there are none.

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 all configured UTMStack servers, specifying attributes (name, base URL, auth mode) and indicating active/default. It differentiates from sibling list tools like list_indices or list_agents by its focus on server configuration.

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?

Provides concrete guidance on how to use the output: by referencing a server via the `server` argument on any tool or using use_server(). This implies using list_servers before targeting a server, though not explicitly stating 'when to use'. It does not mention alternatives but the guidance is clear enough.

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