list_servers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context beyond the input schema: it specifies the query timeframe ('last 10 minutes'), the PromQL query pattern ('up{server_name!=""}'), and the return format ('unique targets by (instance, job) with server_name'). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation, which is important for a tool querying monitoring data.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by clear sections for 'Inputs' and 'Behavior.' Every sentence earns its place by adding specific, non-redundant information. There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and specific behavior.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and behavior, and the output schema likely handles return values. However, it lacks context on error cases, authentication needs, or how it fits with sibling tools, which would enhance completeness for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the two parameters: 'environment' as 'explicit environment key (highest priority)' and 'env_hint' as 'fallback environment hint when environment is not provided.' This clarifies their roles and priority, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify what values are valid (e.g., example environments) or how they affect the query, preventing a perfect score.

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's purpose: 'List monitored servers detected from recent `up{server_name!=""}` series.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('monitored servers'), and mentions the data source. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'list_loki_hosts' or 'list_process_groups', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_loki_hosts' or 'list_checks', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios for selecting this tool over others. The behavioral section describes what the tool does, not when to use it.

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