Server List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: no connection is established, implying a local/offline read that needs no auth and is safe. It stops short of describing return format, ordering, or behavior when no servers are configured.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource is stated first and the distinguishing constraint ('without connecting') closes it. Every clause 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?

For a zero-parameter, side-effect-free list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description names both what is enumerated and the key execution constraint. It is nearly complete, missing only minor detail such as output ordering or the empty-list case.

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 schema takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there are no arguments whose semantics need explaining. The description adds nothing here because nothing needs adding.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (configured SSH aliases and public endpoint information), which an agent can distinguish from file-oriented siblings like remote_list or remote_search. It implicitly separates itself from server_test_connection via 'without connecting', though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'without connecting' suggests this is the cheap, offline way to enumerate server definitions before deciding to test one. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or reference to the natural alternative (server_test_connection) for validating connectivity.

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