list_services

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the '[READ]' tag, so no contradiction. The description does add value beyond annotations by disclosing that the response includes per-service server-up counts, which is otherwise unavailable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about auth, limits, or result shape.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the resource and key return detail stated before the Args block. The Args formatting is slightly redundant for a single optional parameter but not wasteful.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return-content hint and the parameter default. It still omits the shape of the service list and any pagination or filtering behavior an agent might need.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'target' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does explain that 'target' is a proxy target name from config and that omitting it uses the default, which is genuinely useful, but it does not say what a valid target value looks like or where to find one.

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 (services/backends) and adds a differentiating detail: per-service server-up counts. This separates it from richer siblings like service_detail, though it never names them explicitly.

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 '[READ]' tag implies a safe read operation but there is no guidance on when to use this versus list_upstreams, service_detail, or proxy_overview. The agent must infer the choice from tool names alone.

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