get_all_inbounds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the REST endpoint path (GET /api/config-profiles/inbounds); it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or size of the returned collection for an unbounded 'all profiles' read.

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 short lines, purpose front-loaded and the endpoint reference supplementary. Nothing is wasted, though the bracket-tagged endpoint line is a formatting convention rather than added meaning.

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 no-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool the description covers what the agent needs to select and invoke it. It is not quite complete on scale/ordering of the returned set, but that gap is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema (additionalProperties: false, empty properties) fully documents that no inputs exist. Nothing further is needed from the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get all inbounds') plus the scope ('from all config profiles'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling get_inbounds_by_profile_uuid without opening either schema. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'from all config profiles' implies the selection condition — use this when you want every profile's inbounds rather than one profile's — but the description never states when to prefer it over get_inbounds_by_profile_uuid or any exclusions. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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