get_server_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'provides an overview' without detailing behavioral traits like response format, pagination, error handling, or authentication needs. It mentions the server must be specified via UUID but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation or has side effects.

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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. Each sentence adds value: the first states the core purpose, and the second clarifies the scope as an overview of all resources on the server.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and scope. However, as a read operation with no annotations, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral constraints, making it minimally viable but incomplete for optimal agent use.

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%, with the parameter 'uuid' fully documented in the schema as the server ID to check, sourced from list_servers. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'list of applications and services running on a server', specifying it provides an overview of all deployed resources. It distinguishes from siblings like list_applications/list_services by focusing on a specific server's resources, though not explicitly contrasting them.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_applications or list_services is provided. The description implies usage for server-specific resource overviews but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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