upstream_detail

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. The [READ] label discloses that it is a read operation, and 'from list_upstreams' hints at data provenance. However, it does not elaborate on state or side effects, leaving room for more transparency.

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 and well-structured, with a one-sentence purpose followed by an Args block. Every line provides necessary 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?

For a simple detail-fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation fully: what it does, how to specify parameters, and a key prerequisite (list_upstreams). It does not explain return fields, but that is not essential for calling 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: service is the backend name, server is the name/address from list_upstreams, and target is the proxy target name with default behavior. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare names and types.

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 states the tool's purpose: retrieving a single upstream server's health/state row. The [READ] prefix and 'One upstream server's health/state row' make it distinct from sibling list tools like list_upstreams.

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 implies usage by indicating the server parameter comes from list_upstreams, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_upstreams for overview). The 'omit for the default' guidance for target adds practical context but no explicit exclusions.

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