list_server_memories

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 clearly states the tool lists instances and optionally filters by staleness, but does not explicitly mention that it is read-only or non-destructive. The behavior is adequately described but not exhaustive.

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 with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds the parameter detail. Perfectly 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?

The description does not specify the return value format (e.g., instance IDs, metadata) or any pagination/limits. Since there is no output schema, this is a notable gap for a list operation that could return many results.

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% with description for the single parameter. The description adds value by detailing that 'stale_only=true' filters instances with modules exceeding TTL, which goes beyond the schema's 'stale modules' phrasing.

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 ('List') and resource ('instances that have cached server memory'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_server_memory' (which likely retrieves a specific memory) and 'list_instances' (which lists all instances regardless of memory state).

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 explains the parameter 'stale_only' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_server_memory' for a single instance's memory). The usage context is implied but not clarified.

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