Détail d’un serveur SkyNode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'Lecture seule' (read-only) and enumerates what information is returned. It does not discuss errors or permissions, but for a read-only detail endpoint this is sufficient.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and output fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to obtain the required ID. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines server_id. The description adds value by telling the agent that the ID comes from list_servers, which is genuinely useful contextual information beyond the schema.

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?

Uses the specific verb 'Détaille' with a clear resource ('un serveur') and lists concrete attributes (état, adresses IP, système, etc.). It clearly distinguishes itself from list_servers by focusing on a single server's detailed status.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to obtain the identifier via list_servers, establishing a clear usage flow. It does not mention when not to use it, but for a simple detail lookup the context is clear.

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