get_server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operations. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'Sensitive environment variables are masked' and 'Requires Application API key'. These disclose security and authentication behaviors not covered by annotations, though it doesn't mention rate limits or other operational constraints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and behavioral notes. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: defining the tool, differentiating from siblings, and disclosing key behaviors, with no wasted words.

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 complexity (read-only configuration inspection) and the absence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral aspects like masking and authentication. However, it could mention the response format or any limitations (e.g., pagination), leaving minor gaps.

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 single parameter 'server_id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 the resource 'detailed static configuration for a server', listing specific components like name, description, resource limits, container config, allocations, and timestamps. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_server_resources' by specifying this is for 'server config inspection' versus 'live resource usage'.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use for server config inspection' and 'For live resource usage (CPU/RAM/disk), use get_server_resources instead'. This clearly defines when to use this tool versus an alternative, with no ambiguity.

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