Inspect the cost-router skip-list

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

With no annotations provided, the description clearly implies a read-only operation by stating it 'Show[s]' data. It adds useful behavioral context: the list is in-memory, reflecting the current routing state, and mentions the reason for the skip-list (free tier was blocked). This goes beyond a simple restatement of the title.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the key action and resource, and every clause provides value. There is no redundancy or 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?

Given that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient detail: what it shows, why it exists, and when it's useful. Nothing critical is missing for the agent to decide to invoke this 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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and no further explanation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource ('in-memory list of domains currently being sent straight to Bright Data'). It also provides the rationale ('free tier was blocked recently'), which helps differentiate it from the many sibling scraping tools.

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 phrase 'Useful for debugging cost' gives clear context for when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's niche purpose is distinct from the other scraping and data tools, making the guidance adequate.

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