list_load_balancers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive semantics, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the cross-account/region scope and the shape of returned objects (listener, health check, attached server group details). It omits pagination/rate-limit behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste, and front-loaded: scope first, use case second, return contents third. Each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so ('JSON array of load balancer objects with listener, health check, and attached server group details'). Annotations cover safety, the single parameter is documented in both schema and prose, leaving no meaningful gap for a read-only list 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 100% for the single 'application' parameter, and the description only implies it via 'for a Spinnaker application' without adding format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 is the ceiling when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 and resource ('List all load balancers') plus the scoping constraint ('for a Spinnaker application across all accounts and regions'). The resource is inherently distinct from all siblings (clusters, firewalls, networks, server groups), so an agent can identify it without ambiguity.

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?

Provides a clear use case ('Use this to inspect network routing and health check configuration for an application'), giving the agent context for when to reach for it. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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