list_entrypoints

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the '[READ]' tag adds little. The description does contribute semantic context by mapping entrypoints to traefik/caddy/haproxy terminology, but says nothing about return volume, ordering, or behavior when a target has no listeners.

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 blocks, concept first, argument second, with zero filler. Every phrase (the per-proxy terminology list, the 'omit for default' note) earns its place.

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 single optional-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly sufficient. The one gap is that, with no output schema, the description never indicates what a returned entrypoint looks like (name plus address/port), leaving the agent to guess at the payload shape.

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 0% and the schema is a bare nullable string, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: it explains that 'target' is a proxy name from config and that omitting it selects the default. It does not say where valid target names can be discovered.

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 (list) and resource (entrypoints/listeners) and defines the concept as 'where traffic enters this proxy', which cleanly separates it from route/service-level siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops just short of 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?

Usage is only implied: a reader infers you call this to inspect the proxy's inbound listeners. The one concrete guideline ('omit for the default') is about the parameter, not about tool selection versus list_routes, find_route, or proxy_overview.

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