Lista serwerow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by specifying what fields are returned, but it does not disclose potential pagination, ordering, or any response format details. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, and the search guidance is presented in the second sentence. Every element 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 simple read-only list operation with two optional parameters, the description plus annotations cover the essential usage context: the resource, output fields, filtering behavior, and safety profile. No critical gap is left for the agent to guess.

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 100%, so both parameters (org and search) are already documented in the schema. The description adds the useful detail that search narrows the list by name, which slightly reinforces the schema, but it does not provide substantial meaning beyond it. The baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Wypisuje' – lists) and a specific resource ('serwery w organizacji'), and enumerates the returned fields: identifier, name, IP address, PHP version, and readiness. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like forge_get_server or forge_list_sites.

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 clearly states this tool lists servers in the organization, which implies it is the right choice when a summary of multiple servers is needed rather than a single server via get_server. It also gives usage guidance for the search parameter to narrow by name, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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