list_middlewares

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing platform-dependent behavior: on caddy/haproxy it returns the support matrix's teaching note because their equivalents live inside routes/haproxy.cfg. That is genuine behavioral context an agent could not infer from structured fields. It omits return shape/pagination, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the [READ] tag and resource name, then the platform caveat, then a compact Args block. Every line earns its place with little filler. The parenthetical is slightly dense but functional.

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 simple one-optional-param read-only list tool with no output schema, this covers purpose, parameter semantics, platform quirks, and relies on annotations for safety. Little an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning – and it does: 'target: Proxy target name from config; omit for the default.' That explains both the value source and the omit-for-default behavior beyond the bare schema default of null.

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?

Combined with the name, the description states a specific verb+resource: listing traefik middlewares, and scopes it by platform (traefik vs caddy/haproxy). It is clear what the tool returns and it is differentiated from the routes/services siblings by being middleware-specific. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so a 4 rather than 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 note that caddy/haproxy return a support-matrix teaching note instead is a useful context hint, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named (e.g. use route_detail to see middleware bindings). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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