timeweb_list_servers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about scope ('in the account') and feature ('with pagination support'), but does not mention response format, default limits, or any side effects. For a read-only listing operation, this is minimally sufficient but not rich.

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, clear sentence that conveys the essential purpose and key feature (pagination). There is no wasted wording or redundancy, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 list operation with only three optional parameters fully documented in the schema, the description is adequate. However, there is no output schema, so the description does not communicate the response structure, and it does not mention default behavior when parameters are omitted. These gaps are moderate given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (limit, format, offset), each with clear descriptions and constraints. The description's mention of 'pagination support' aligns with the limit/offset parameters but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('all cloud servers in the account'), which is specific and unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'timeweb_get_server' by explicitly covering all servers rather than a single one.

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 the tool's use case: when you need to retrieve all servers in the account. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when a specific server is needed, use timeweb_get_server), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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