list_middlewares

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and the leading '[READ]' explicitly signals read-only behavior. It also discloses the unexpected behavior on caddy/haproxy. It does not describe return format or error cases, but for a simple listing tool this is sufficient.

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 compact, front-loaded with the read indicator, and uses a clear structure. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 low complexity, one optional parameter, and absent output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: read safety, platform-specific behavior, and parameter usage. Minor omissions like return format are not critical for this tool.

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 description explains the target parameter as 'Proxy target name from config; omit for the default,' adding meaning not present in the schema alone. Since schema coverage is 0%, this fully compensates for the single optional parameter.

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 identifies list_middlewares as a read operation for Traefik middlewares and explains its behavior on other proxies. It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like list_routes, but the platform-specific scope makes 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?

It gives a clear platform boundary: use it for Traefik middlewares, while on caddy/haproxy it returns a teaching note. This is helpful context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a full when-not-to-use list.

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