list_entrypoints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It includes '[READ]' to signal a read-only operation and explains the optional target parameter. It does not disclose return format or error behavior, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable.

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 short and front-loaded with purpose, followed by a minimal parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is clean for a one-parameter tool.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and read-only nature. It does not detail return values, but that is less critical for a straightforward list operation.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the 'target' parameter, but the description provides an 'Args' block explaining it as 'Proxy target name from config; omit for the default.' This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 indicates this tool lists listeners/entrypoints across traefik, caddy, and haproxy, with the context 'where traffic enters this proxy'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_routes and list_services by focusing on entrypoints, though the verb 'list' is implied rather than explicit.

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 implies use when you need to inspect listener/entrypoint definitions, and the '[READ]' tag suggests a safe read operation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or any exclusions, relying on the reader to infer usage from the sibling tool list.

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