List Website Reverse-Proxy Rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral value by disclosing that raw Nginx file paths and config snippets are excluded from results and that results are scoped to the selected node — something an agent would not learn from the annotations or schema.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the scope-defining content comes first and the exclusion clause follows as the key caveat. Nothing is redundant with the title.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, this is close to sufficient. The only gaps are operational details a caller might want — ordering, pagination or result shape — but with no output schema the absence is minor since the description clarifies what is not returned.

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 100%, with nodeId documented as "local" or a numeric ID from list_nodes and website_id as a numeric ID, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates that both website and node scope the query, adding essentially no new syntax or constraint detail.

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?

Description gives a specific verb and resource ("List configured reverse-proxy rules") scoped to a website ID and node, which cleanly separates it from the mutating siblings upsert_website_proxy and delete_website_proxy. The added exclusion of raw Nginx file paths and config snippets further narrows what it returns, though it does not name a sibling alternative by name.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to inspect existing proxy rules for a site. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention that upsert_website_proxy is the write path, and no stated prerequisites such as needing a valid website_id from list_websites.

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