list_upstreams

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. The [READ] prefix signals a non-mutating operation, and the field list discloses the output shape, but it does not mention data freshness, error cases, or permissions, leaving some behavioral transparency gaps.

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, with a clear header, useful output spec, and brief parameter notes. Every sentence adds value and the structure is scannable.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the essential information: what it returns, how to filter, and its relationship to backend_health_rca. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the 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 Args section explains both parameters clearly, defining service as an optional filter and target as a proxy target name with a default behavior. This adds significant meaning over the bare schema, which only provides names and null defaults.

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 begins with '[READ] Server-level upstream health rows' and enumerates the fields returned, clearly identifying the resource and scope. It also states it feeds backend_health_rca, which helps distinguish it from related list tools like list_services or list_routes.

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 provides context that this is a health-row listing and mentions optional filters for service and target, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like upstream_detail or backend_health_rca, so usage guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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