list_servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies authentication requirements ('Requires Application API key'), explains the dual-purpose identifiers (id for admin tools, identifier for client tools), and mentions pagination behavior. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral details. Each sentence adds critical information without redundancy, and key points (like authentication and identifier purposes) are front-loaded for clarity.

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 (list operation with pagination and authentication), annotations cover safety, and the description adds context on identifiers, authentication, and usage. However, without an output schema, the description could better detail the return format (e.g., structure of server objects). It's mostly complete but has a minor gap.

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 clear documentation for both parameters (page and per_page). The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond the schema, only mentioning 'Supports pagination' without detailing how parameters affect it. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 specific action ('List all game servers'), resource ('on the Pterodactyl panel'), and scope ('with name, status, and resource limits'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_server (single server) or list_allocations (different resource). It explicitly mentions what information is returned, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool ('Call this first to discover server IDs and identifiers') and distinguishes between different identifiers for admin vs. client tools, helping the agent choose alternatives appropriately. It also mentions pagination support, indicating when to use parameters.

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