upstream_detail

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the '[READ]' tag simply restates it. Beyond that the description only mentions the default-target behavior, adding no information about error handling, missing servers, or response characteristics for a lookup tool.

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?

One front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a tight args list; every line carries needed information and there is no filler or repetition.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, every parameter, and the default-target case. Return-shape information is unnecessary given no output schema, leaving only minor gaps around failure behavior.

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 must carry the parameter burden, and it does: it names all three parameters and explains each — service/backend name, server name or address sourced from list_upstreams, and target with its omit-for-default semantics. Only type-level detail is absent, which is trivial for string args.

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+resource: retrieving one upstream server's health/state row, which clearly separates it from list_upstreams. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from other singular-detail siblings such as service_detail or route_detail, but the scope is unambiguous.

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: the description notes 'server' comes from list_upstreams and that omitting target yields the default, which gives workflow context. It never says when to prefer this over list_upstreams or backend_health_rca, so guidance remains implicit.

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