list_upstreams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with the '[READ]' tag and by disclosing the exact row fields returned, including the status enum (up/down/maint/drain). It omits any note on scope limits, ordering, or pagination, which keeps it short of 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 the resource, then the return shape, then the args. The row spec in braces is dense but per-field meaningful; nothing reads as filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned row fields, and both optional parameters are explained. Health/status semantics and any listing limits are left implicit, so it is complete but not exhaustive.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it explains that 'service' is an optional backend filter and that 'target' is a proxy config target name that defaults when omitted. It does not give the accepted name format or an example, leaving a small gap.

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 and resource (list upstream health rows) and even enumerates the returned row shape with status values, which is far more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely named sibling upstream_detail, so an agent still has to infer which one to reach for.

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 implied rather than stated: 'Feeds backend_health_rca' hints at the downstream workflow and the args imply a filtering use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with siblings like upstream_detail or list_services.

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