list_tunnels_all

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and "Elenca" does imply a read-only enumeration across all hosts, which is useful. It does not state cost, latency, or whether unreachable hosts are skipped, which matters for a fan-out across all hosts. The existence of an output schema means return-value detail is not required here.

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?

A single compact sentence with the scope front-loaded and zero padding. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, so conciseness itself is not the problem.

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 parameterless, read-only listing with an output schema, the description covers what is enumerated and over what scope, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is routing among the several tunnel-related siblings, which is only weakly addressed.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify. No misleading parameter hints are present.

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 ("Elenca") and resource ("tunnel") plus scope ("su tutti gli host"), which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_tunnels. It adds that active state is included, so the returned content is partly described. It is not an exact restatement of the name, but the very short phrasing leaves the sibling distinction inferential rather than explicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_tunnels, tunnel_health, or stop_tunnels. The "all hosts" scope is the only usage signal, and it is incidental rather than framed as guidance. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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